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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on January 15th, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 are pending. Claims 5, 19, and 20 are canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 24th, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
Applicant is made aware of similar, commonly-owned applications 18/026,692, 18/026,690, 18/268,689, 18/266,955, and 18/266,964 that appear to provide patentably distinct subject matter, but whose claims should be evaluated as they evolve throughout their own prosecution.
Claim Interpretation
The recitations to “upstream object identifier,” “historical object identifier,” and “sampling object identifier” are herein treated as nominal designations/labels to the respective “object identifier,” and further, with respect to “upstream” and “downstream”, the claims are absent any method/system with defined confines/production line that leads from an input to an output so as to breathe any life into the relative nature of “upstream” (and thus, an implied “downstream”).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification lacks antecedent basis for the amended recitation to “the upstream object identifier is an updatable data record...”
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 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) alone and as an ordered combination recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1) of assessing/evaluating data to ascertain a relative performance that can be accomplished through mental steps. This is likewise seen with respect to the amendment in each of independent claims 1, 21, and 22 of “wherein the zone presence signal is generated…by performing a zone-time transformation, which transformation maps…” that drawn to a further abstract idea within the claims as this is merely drawn to data processing as in mathematical concepts (see pars.[0036,0039,0309] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0024839).
This seen in all of independent claims 1, 21, and 22, including alone and as an ordered combination with their respective dependent claims.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) because the remaining steps are drawn to data gathering steps (i.e. “providing, via an interface, an upstream object identifier…”, “receiving, at the computing unit, a subset…”, and “determining, via the computing unit, a subset of the real-time process data based on the upstream object identifier and zone presence signal…”) that do not add meaningful limitation to the method of claim 1 (and likewise as in the system of cl. 21 and computer program/non-transitory CRM as in cl. 22).
Further, as in Step 2B, these steps are routine and conventional and recited at a high level of generality.
Additionally, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B) because the added step of “appending, to the upstream object identifier, the at least one zone-specific performance parameter” is drawn to extra-solution activity.
This remains to be seen in the dependent claims, wherein the ordered combination of elements does not provide practical application of the abstract idea nor significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims are drawn to added qualifications to the data-gathering aspects, additional extra-solution activity therewith, and all recited at a high level of generality, and further computations that may be accomplished through mental steps.
Examiner further notes that while the claims have recited that the various steps have been done by an interface or computing unit such steps could have been done mentally and further, general purpose interfaces/computer as recited is not a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b), I.
The recited interface, computing unit, interface, sensors, and actuators do not provide to recite particular machine(s) as in MPEP 2106.05 (b), I, and fails Step 2A, Prong 2.
These elements are routine and conventional in the art of process control system, and are recited at a high level of generality recited without any specifics that particularly correlate and impact with the abstract idea at-hand aside from its general implementation, and thus fails Step 2A, Prong 2 (wherein Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis is drawn to the abstract idea). See also, for example USPN 3,602,701; USPN 3,891,836; USPN 4,027,085; USPN 6,306,658; USPN 6,455,316; US 2008/0069739; US 2013/0102772.
Examples of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine include Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86,40 USPQ 199 (1939) in which a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system, and the claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged.
This is likewise seen in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web.
These elements of an interface, a computing unit, sensors, and actuators amount to a general listing of known, conventional architecture in the art and at a highly-broad level of detail in terms of both its structure and its function/process, wherein such claimed architecture is generally applicable and ubiquitous to chemical production control and does not have any particular, distinct or special correlation to the abstract idea at-hand.
The cited general architecture does not provide a particular machine as defined in MPEP 2106.05 (b), I, and is generally recited without any specifics that particularly correlate and impact with the abstract idea at-hand aside from its general implementation, and thus fails Step 2A, Prong 2 (wherein Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis is drawn to the abstract idea).
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Examiner further notes that while the claims have recited that the various steps have been done by a processor, such steps could have been done mentally and further, a general purpose computer has been recited and is not a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b), I.
Examiner further notes that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility:
The fact that a computer “necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,” is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a “machine”), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility “depend simply on the draftsman’s art,” Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that “‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’” Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).
Examiner further notes that while independent claim 21 is codified as a “system” in the preamble thereof, the claim itself is absent any particular, physical infrastructure for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant and with particular correlation to the abstract idea at-hand (highly generalized introduction of sensors and actuators, both within the preamble that does not suffice to clearly positively provide such elements, and without their related chemical production process steps and separated equipment zones therefor does not suffice to provide a “system”), and the body of the claim amounts to the general application with the above-discussed data gathering, extra solution activity, and abstract idea therewith.
The claims indefinitely set forth a system and are drawn to computing functions.
The provision of comprising “a computing unit” further does not suffice as seen above, and the provision to sensors and actuators (and noting, not their related chemical process and physically separated equipment zones) and the amended provision of “controlling…at least one of the one or more actuators based on the at least one zone-specific performance parameter to manipulate at least one operating condition of the production process and adjust the manufacturing of the chemical product” is recited at a high level of generality and that amounts to well-known and conventional activity in the art of process control in which conditions are monitored by sensors and adjustments are made to processing equipment correlated therewith as by coupled actuators to affect the desired action/adjustment (see also, for example USPN 3,602,701; USPN 3,891,836; USPN 4,027,085; USPN 6,306,658; USPN 6,455,316; US 2008/0069739; US 2013/0102772).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended recitation to “the upstream object identifier is an updatable data record...” is drawn to new matter.
The specification is absent discussion and/or support for this recitation, and does not apprise one skilled in the art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
It is further noted that Applicant does not provide a particular showing in the specification of the purported support thereto. Citations are made to pars.[0066,0116] at page 13 of the remarks in discussing the “object identifier” in general, however, such paragraphs do not provide discussion and/or support for the upstream object identifier is an updatable data record.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of the method, system, and computer program as in independent claims 1, 21, and 22 (and dependent claims thereof) are indefinitely defined.
Herein, it is unclear what encompasses an “upstream object identifier,” “historical object identifier,” and “sampling object identifier” (and as amended with the appended qualifier “comprising a globally unique identifier,” and “in an updatable data record…”) as discussed herein.
The amended recitation to “is an updated data record” is not supported by the disclosure and drawn to new matter therein, as discussed above in the body of the action and the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 under 35 USC 112 a,1st.
Further, Applicant offers at par.[0066] that the object identifier “refers to a digital identifier for its respective input material,” wherein such recitation amounts to a generic and vague discussion that is akin to the initial recitation “object identifier” itself. Par.[0066] does not offer any more insight into what this means in terms of the object and its functionality (“for” its respective input material), and instead provides further recitations to more general and vague descriptors of identifiers codified by adjectives such as “historical” object identifier.
Par.[0116] is drawn to provisions of the terms “appending” or “append” by way of general discussion to “including or attaching,” as well as, exemplary, non-definitive discussion to “saving”, “linking,” and does not suffice to provide clear metes and bounds as to the claimed “object identifier.”
This is similarly seen as in the claims wherein the recited “appending” further data to the “object identifier” is indefinitely understood. As discussed and as seen from the specification, the “object identifier” is indefinitely described as a “digital identifier,” and even assuming as a label of sorts as given by “digital identifier,” it is unclear how a “digital identifier” allows for any appending of further data thereto. For example, the specification does not describe the “object identifier” as a rewritable memory of sorts that stores data and dynamically updates with new or replacement data, and wherein an object identifier/digital identifier is merely a label or designation of sorts to the data and provides no ability to append data thereto.
By this, it is further indefinitely understood what is meant by “appending” data to the object identifier, and is likewise seen with appending a part of the upstream object identifier to that of the downstream object identifier as in cl. 17.
The lack of clarity further stems to the relative “upstream” designation given thereto as the claims are absent any infrastructure to an industrial plant and its various, functioning equipment and a production flow-sequence from an input to a material/product output and defining relatively therewithin particular points in the process flow to correlate with “upstream” and (and thus downstream as well such as in cl. 17).
Further, the metes and bounds of the claimed method, system, and computer program of claims 1-18, 21, and 22, are indefinitely defined for their set forth functionalities.
With regard to the method, system, and computer program (and dependents thereof), the body of the claims indefinitely provide for the recited “monitoring a production process…” set forth in the preambles thereof.
The body of these claims is drawn to data gathering and manipulations thereof.
However, there are no actual, active steps provided to affect any sort of monitoring of a production process at an industrial plant.
The claims are without positively claiming the infrastructure of the industrial plant itself and its equipment zones with sensors thereat to generate data that may received and communicated (i.e. by transmitters/connections with the computing unit) for various determinations or actions to be taken therewith.
The claimed data gathering and manipulations thereof relate with respect to “real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions,” while the claims themselves are absent the infrastructure thereto being positively claimed and further, without positive provision to the various sensors involved for generating and communicating such real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions.
Further, as amended herein, all of independent claims 1, 21, and 22 are indefinitely defined in their metes and bounds as it is unclear what step(s) constitute “performing a zone-time transformation.” The claim describes narratively what the transformation maps, but does not particularly or clearly define what steps constitute a “zone-time transformation” in order to afford such a desired result as recited herein.
The specification does not remedy this, as the phrase “zone-time transformation” is not provided with particular definition as it relates to the step(s) taken to perform such. Examiner notes the general discussion in pars.[0036,0039] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0024839 that “zone-time transformation” can be (i.e. non-definitive and merely exemplary) a “simple mapping in time scales,” in which it is also not clear even in this exemplary instance the metes and bounds of “simple mapping in time scales.” There is further general and prophetic discussion of more complex model application, but this also both non-definitive and without its own particular defined model/implementation steps therewith.
With regard to claims 6-16 the recitation to the computing of the zone-specific performance parameter being done at least partially by at least one machine learning model trained with the historical data is indefinitely provided.
The claims provide a vague and indefinite discussion to “using” at least one machine learning model and the metes and bounds of what step(s) encompass “using” for the recited functionalities therein are indefinitely defined.
Further, the written description fails to disclose the algorithm(s) for performing the claimed specific determinations.
See MPEP 2181, Section II, B:
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’”) (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that “a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself.” EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’” EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer.” EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). “Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient.” 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, “[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm.” Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Co., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007-8, 2021 USPQ2d 284 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. (“Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’” (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)) An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir.1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945.
Applicant’s specification is devoid of the algorithm(s) required for performing the functions as in claim 10. Examiner notes the general and prophetic discussion in pars. [0083,0093,0094,0096,0113,0114,0288,0310], for example.
However, no algorithm(s), models, particular process steps, layers, particular data training and model development thereof, etc…is/are defined for the recited functions in the claims, nor are the particulars of such computing of the zone-specific performance parameter by a trained machine learning model defined wherein the disclosure amounts to a general, prophetic discussion thereof that is drawn to categorical disclosure to the field of machine learning at-large and is without any particulars to that which has been developed and found for the present application and its sought functionalities as in claims 6-16.
The claims go beyond a general purpose computer and are not coextensive with the computer as defined in the MPEP passages cited above. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 USC 112b/2nd.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Further, the reference to “a control system for the production process” is indefinitely understood given, as previously discussed, the body of the claims in that which is positively provided is drawn to data gathering and determinations therewith and is absent any “production process” as it pertains to physical infrastructure of equipment zones for producing a product and a process controller applied therein for various affect actions.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The “sampling object identifier” is indefinitely defined as previously discussed above, and herein is further indefinitely provided in its metes and bounds with respect to “being related to the material which is at that respective zone…” as the claims are absent any positive recitation(s) to a plant with such equipment zones (and sensors and the like that functionally and communicatively provide for any sort of correlation to material at a particular point within the confines of an overall system).
Further, a “prediction” is indefinitely provided for herein as the claim and preceding dependent claim chain provide for a computation by the at least ML model. It is further unclear what is meant by “accuracy threshold value” and how this value correlates with the established and calculated “confidence level.”
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinitely defined as it is unclear what step(s) constitute performing “at least one lab analysis.”
The recitation itself to “at least one lab analysis” is vague and the claim is without the particular, active process step(s) that make-up this “at least one lab analysis,” and is likewise seen with the amendments made herein to “physical or chemical testing…one or more performance parameters, and wherein the at least one lab analysis is performed on the material which is at the respective zone related to the warning signal”
The general discussion in the specification at pars.[0095,0115,0211] does not render clear the steps involved in such at least one lab analysis as the disclosure is devoid of discussion therewith.
Instead, the discussion appears to be drawn to codifying that the warning signal functionally provides an alert indicating that physical test of a sample should be carried out.
Examiner further notes that the performing of “at least one lab analysis” itself is indefinitely provided for by the claims as the claims are drawn to data gathering and manipulations thereof and are absent the infrastructure of a chemical production plant, including equipment having slip stream lines or ports/valves for taking portions of sample at various points along the production line coincident with received and analyzed sensor signals.
This is likewise seen with respect to the amendments to “one or more performance parameters,” in which such terminology is indefinitely defined in its metes and bounds. This is seen through pars.[0079,0080], for example, which provide general discussion thereto and non-definitive disclosure as to what these parameters actually are. The disclosure speaks to exemplary and general “may be, indicative of, related to” and that the parameters “is such a parameter than should satisfy one or more predefined criteria indicating suitability or a degree of suitability…” that provides further, vague disclosure and non-definitive discussion thereto as it pertains to the claim recitations.
Further, and as discussed below, the claims are absent any positive provision to to any physical zone, equipment, industrial plant or the like so as to provide for this sought “at least one lab analysis…” The claims are drawn to a data processing architecture and without positive provision to a production system for producing a chemical product under control scheme or informed analysis thereof within the system’s confines (i.e. reactors, process manufacturing equipment, slip streams, etc…)
Examiner further notes that the claims as a whole, as in claims 1-18, 21, and 22, are indefinitely defined in their metes and bounds with respect to the various designations and functionalities that are related to the zones/real-time process data, and the like that pertain to a chemical production process as the claims themselves are without positive implementation of such industrial plant with its various equipment zones of functionality (mix, heat, react, separate, etc…), connected sensors/transmitters to monitor sought production parameters/quality so as to realize any such data therewith (real-time or otherwise) and breathe life into the discussions therewith beyond providing mere further designations to data.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of the method are indefinitely defined as it is unclear what active step(s) provide for the recited “using” of the start and stop signal in both the “delimt the subset…” and the manner in which the “zone presence signal” is used for its recited functionality.
Claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of claims 1, 21, and 22 are indefinitely defined herein.
The claims have been amended in their preambles to recite a plurality of sensors and one or actuators, however, their positive inclusion to the respective claims is indefinitely set forth.
The claims now recite in the preamble “a plurality of sensors” and “one or more actuators…” in which it is both unclear if these are positive elements of the claims, in which the body of the claims are drawn to computing operations, [along with a statement that part of the method of cl. 1 is performed by a computing unit operatively communicated therewith the sensors/actuator(s)] and the body of the claims remains absent any provisions to a production process for manufacturing a chemical product, nor does the body of the claims provide the equipment zones of the industrial plant that would be various physical infrastructure for processing (i.e. separating, heating, reacting, etc…) at various stages of the production process to which desired condition-responsive control is applied to the correlated sensors/actuator(s) of the equipment zones to produce a desired product.
Applicant has placed a recitation to physical elements of sensors and one or more actuators in the preamble, but their presence in the preamble calls into question if these are positive elements of the method.
And further, the presence of sensors and one or more actuator(s) indefinitely provides for any sort of production process and does not afford the related and necessary equipment zones of the industrial plant.
Examiner further notes that in referencing the “one or more sensors” (assumingly proper as “one or more of the plurality of sensors”; note lack of proper antecedent basis herein) in the body of the claims (as seen in all of cls. 1, 21, 22), the recitation itself stems from an object identifier for input material data.
The input data itself is not positively provided and is drawn to a functionality of the object identifier.
Further thereto, such prospective input data is then referenced as corresponding to the output of one or more of the plurality of sensors, which does not provide the sensors, but merely characterizes prospective data.
The claims do not provide an output(s) of the sensors. The claims do not provide equipment linked with the plurality of sensors in which the sensors output data correlated therewith.
Further, as with the “one or more actuators” recited to manipulate at least one equipment operating condition of the production process and adjust the manufacturing of the chemical product, Examiner asserts that there are no such “at least one equipment” claimed nor with provisions to their “operating condition(s)” to be adjusted in any manner, nor is there a manufacturing process to be influenced.
Instead, the body of the claim is drawn to data gathering and manipulation thereto with a general data interface and a computing unit that are absent any connection with production infrastructure so as to affect any sort of controlled process monitoring (see above wherein the “sensors” are not positively introduced but inferentially referenced in terms of the object identifier and its prospective data functionality).
Lastly, the recitation to “the output of the one ore more sensors” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claims do not previously establish an output and the claims previously establish “a plurality of sensors” (Applicant may desire “one or more of the plurality of sensors”).
Clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 USC 101, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that the claims, as amended, recite “…control at least one of the one or more actuators based on the at least one zone-specific performance parameter to manipulate at least one equipment operating condition of the production process and adjust the manufacturing of the chemical product” that is a concrete, physical control action that improves the chemical-manufacturing process itself by feeding the computed performance parameter back into the plant to adjust how the chemical product is manufacture.
Examiner asserts that the recited “plurality of sensors…” , “one or more actuators operatively coupled to equipment zones for manipulating” are drawn to prospective workpieces wherein an industrial plant, which is the base element recited in the preamble that comprises these elements, is not a positively claimed element of the method and is drawn to a prospective element with respect to an intended use of being for monitoring a production process therefor.
The claims do not require a production process nor an industrial plant comprising these elements.
Further, to the extent, the amended recitation “the method at least partially being performed via a computing unit operatively coupled to the plurality of sensors and the one or more actuators positively introduces these elements (but not an actual production process nor an industrial plant therefor and its various separated equipment zones and wherein the controller’s operation being ascribed as “at least partially” and without particulars to the part(s) performed), their provision along with the subsequent, amended provision of “controlling…at least one of the one or more actuators based on the at least one zone-specific performance parameter to manipulate at least one operating condition of the production process and adjust the manufacturing of the chemical product” is recited at a high level of generality and that amounts to well-known and conventional activity in the art of process control in which conditions are monitored by sensors and adjustments are made to processing equipment correlated therewith as by coupled actuators to affect the desired action/adjustment (see also, for example USPN 3,602,701; USPN 3,891,836; USPN 4,027,085; USPN 6,306,658; USPN 6,455,316; US 2008/0069739; US 2013/0102772; US 2018/0292812).
Examiner further notes that in referencing the “one or more sensors” (assumingly proper as “one or more of the plurality of sensors”) in the body of the claims (as seen in all of cls. 1, 21, 22), the recitation itself stems from an object identifier for input material data.
The input material data itself is not positively provided and is drawn to a functionality of the object identifier.
Further thereto, such prospective input data is then referenced as corresponding to the output of one or more of the plurality of sensors, which does not provide the sensors, but merely characterizes prospective data.
The claims do not provide an output(s) of the sensors. The claims do not provide equipment linked with the plurality of sensors in which the sensors output data correlated therewith.
Further, as with the “one or more actuators” recited to manipulate at least one equipment operating condition of the production process and adjust the manufacturing of the chemical product, Examiner asserts that there are no such “at least one equipment” positively claimed nor with provisions to their “operating condition(s)” to be adjusted in any manner, nor is there a manufacturing process to be influenced.
The claims remain absent any positive provisions of the industrial plant [this is recited within the “for” recitation of the preamble of the claims and drawn to a prospective workpiece with respect to an intended use with a prospective production process], nor to that of a sample and/or material feed(s) that are processed through various processing equipment, and which feed(s) have parameters or readings thereof sensed and monitored in order to afford a particular control at any stage of the processing through various processing equipment so as to achieve a desired end product of desired specifications.
The claims do not positively necessitate the industrial plant and its particular “zones,” (and even as assumed as zones construed with positive physical infrastructure) let alone a particular chemical production control therewith that is carried out to produce a desired product in providing condition-responsive control to the various “zones” of the plant concordant with various process steps of the manufacturing application.
The claims remain drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more in which the claim(s) alone and as an ordered combination recite(s) an abstract idea of assessing/evaluating data to ascertain a relative performance that can be accomplished through mental steps, and wherein “the zone presence signal is generated…by performing a zone-time transformation, which transformation maps…” is drawn to a further abstract idea within the claims as this is merely drawn to data processing as in mathematical concepts (see pars.[0036,0039,0309] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0024839).
This likewise applies to the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 22 that is an abstract idea of assessing/evaluating data to ascertain a relative performance that can be accomplished through mental steps, and wherein “the zone presence signal is generated…by performing a zone-time transformation, which transformation maps…” is drawn to a further abstract idea within the claims as this is merely drawn to data processing as in mathematical concepts (see pars.[0036,0039,0309] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0024839).
Similar and likewise remarks are provided with respect to the amendments of claim 21, and Examiner re-asserts that above discussion as to claim 1/22 likewise herein to claim 21.
Further, the amended recitation to the system comprising the sensors, the one or more actuators, and a computing unit operatively connected therewith does not represent a particular machine as in MPEP 2106.05 (b), I.
These elements are routine and conventional in the art of process control system, and is generally recited without any specifics that particularly correlate and impact with the abstract idea at-hand aside from its general implementation, and thus fails Step 2A, Prong 2 (wherein Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis is drawn to the abstract idea). For example, see the above cited prior art.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Thus, claims 1-4,6-18, 21, and 22 remain rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons discussed above and in the body of the action.
With regards to claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 USC 112b, 2nd paragraph, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant cites pars.[0066,0116] and asserts that the amended “object identifier” that is “globally unique” and “an updatable data record” is clear from the disclosure.
Examiner initially asserts that “globally unique” as disclosed in Applicant’s specification does not offer more insight or clarity to what is encompassed by the “object identifier,” and instead, presents itself as a further, preferred archetype or species thereto (see par.[0124,0183]).
Additionally, the amended recitation “is an updated data record” is not supported by the disclosure and drawn to new matter therein, as discussed above in the body of the action and the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-18, 21, and 22 under 35 USC 112 a,1st.
Applicant offers at par.[0066] that the object identifier “refers to a digital identifier for its respective input material,” wherein such recitation amounts to a generic and vague discussion that is akin to the initial recitation “object identifier” itself. Par.[0066] does not offer any more insight into what this means in terms of the object and its functionality (“for” its respective input material), and instead provides further recitations to more general and vague descriptors of identifiers codified by adjectives such as “historical” object identifier.
Par.[0116] is drawn to provisions of the terms “appending” or “append” by way of general discussion to “including or attaching,” as well as, exemplary, non-definitive discussion to “saving”, “linking,” and does not suffice to provide clear metes and bounds as to the claimed “object identifier.”
With regard to the cited “monitoring a production process” limitation, Applicant asserts that the claims as amended now positively recite the industrial plant’s physical architecture.
As discussed above, and coincident with the amendments made herein, Examiner asserts that the claims remain indefinitely defined in this matter.
The claims now recite in the preamble “a plurality of sensors” and “one or more actuators…” in which it is both unclear if these are positive elements of the method of claim 1, in which the body of the claim is drawn to computing operations, along with a statement that part of the method is performed by a computing unit operatively communicated therewith the sensors/actuator(s) and the body of the claims remains absent any provisions to a production process for manufacturing a chemical product, nor does the body of the claims provide the equipment zones of the industrial plant that would be various physical infrastructure for processing (i.e. separating, heating, reacting, etc…) at various stages of the production process to which desired condition-responsive control is applied to the correlated sensors/actuator(s) of the equipment zones to produce a desired product.
Applicant has placed a recitation to physical elements of sensors and one or more actuators in the preamble, but their presence in the preamble calls into question if these are positive elements of the method. And further, the presence of sensors and one or more actuator(s) indefinitely provides for any sort of production process and does not afford the related and necessary equipment zones of the industrial plant.
Examiner further notes that in referencing the “one or more sensors” (assumingly proper as “one or more of the plurality of sensors”) in the body of the claims (as seen in all of cls. 1, 21, 22), the recitation itself stems from an object identifier for input material data.
The input data itself is not positively provided and is drawn to a functionality of the object identifier.
Further thereto, such prospective input data is then referenced as corresponding to the output of one or more of the plurality of sensors, which does not provide the sensors, but merely characterizes prospective data.
The claims do not provide an output(s) of the sensors. The claims do not provide equipment linked with the plurality of sensors in which the sensors output data correlated therewith.
Further, as with the “one or more actuators” recited to manipulate at least one equipment operating condition of the production process and adjust the manufacturing of the chemical product, Examiner asserts that there are no such “at least one equipment” claimed nor with provisions to their “operating condition(s)” to be adjusted in any manner, nor is there a manufacturing process to be influenced.
This is likewise seen with respect to the system of claim 21, 22.
Further, Applicant further asserts that the final line of all of independent claims 1, 21, and 22 recites “to monitor a production process.”
Examiner asserts that this is nothing more than a for statement as in an intended use of a signal, and does not necessitate any production process nor monitoring thereof.
Further, as in the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 21, while Applicant asserts that the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention as the body of the claim relies upon and derives antecedent basis for the limitations.
Examiner asserts that the preamble is given as a necessary component in as much as Applicant is attesting herein.
Examiner maintains that Applicant has neither argued or particularly provided that the claims themselves positively provide a production process under investigation and including the industrial plant and is equipment zones to which condition-responsive control is applied.
With regard to the “zone-time transformation,” Applicant asserts that the amended claims recite that the transformation “maps at least one property related to the input material to the specific equipment zone via one or more time-dependent signals from the real-time process data to monitor the production process.”
Examiner asserts that pars.[0036-0037] do not make clear what step(s) constitute a “zone-time transformation” and further, what constitutes “maps” as recited herein.
Examiner notes par.[0039], however, therein the disclosure vaguely speaks to “the zone-time transformation can be a simple mapping in time scales…” as well as discussion to prophetic “complex model based on process simulations.”
With regard to claim 10, Examiner asserts that the amendments do not clarify the claim.
The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinitely defined as it is unclear what step(s) constitute performing “at least one lab analysis.”
The recitation itself to “at least one lab analysis” is vague and the claim is without the particular, active process step(s) that make-up this “at least one lab analysis,” and is likewise seen with the amendments made herein to “physical or chemical testing…one or more performance parameters, and wherein the at least one lab analysis is performed on the material which is at the respective zone related to the warning signal”
The general discussion in the specification at pars.[0095,0115,0211] does not render clear the steps involved in such at least one lab analysis as the disclosure is devoid of discussion therewith.
Instead, the discussion appears to be drawn to codifying that the warning signal functionally provides an alert indicating that physical test of a sample should be carried out.
Examiner further notes that the performing of “at least one lab analysis” itself is indefinitely provided for by the claims as the claims are drawn to data gathering and manipulations thereof and absent a provision to produce/receive a material at a respective zone related to the warning signal.
This is likewise seen with respect to the amendments to “one or more performance parameters,” in which such terminology is indefinitely defined in its metes and bounds. This is seen through pars.[0079,0080], for example, which provide general discussion thereto and non-definitive disclosure as to what these parameters actually are. The disclosure speaks to exemplary and general “may be, indicative of, related to” and that the parameters “is such a parameter than should satisfy one or more predefined criteria indicating suitability or a degree of suitability…” that provides further, vague disclosure and non-definitive discussion thereto as it pertains to the claim recitations.
Further, and as discussed below, the claims are absent any positive provision to to any physical zone, equipment, industrial plant or the like so as to provide for this sought “at least one lab analysis…” The claims are drawn to a data processing architecture and without positive provision to a production system for producing a chemical product under control scheme or informed analysis thereof within the system’s confines (i.e. reactors, process manufacturing equipment, slip streams, etc…)
With regards to claims 6-16, Applicant asserts the specification is not devoid of an algorithm and it discloses specific model types.
Examiner asserts that the generalized, categorical discussion in pars.[0085-0088] does not suffice to provide particular algorithms or models for the particularly recited functionalities recited throughout claims 6-16.
Further, the claims provide a vague and indefinite discussion to “using” at least one machine learning model and the metes and bounds of what step(s) encompass “using” for the recited functionalities therein are indefinitely defined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights