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.
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”).
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 and interface do not provide to recite particular machine(s) as in MPEP 2106.05 (b), I, and fails Step 2A, Prong 2.
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 and a computing unit 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 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, 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 amended provision of comprising “a computing unit” further does not suffice as seen above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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”) as discussed herein.
Besides being drawn to data itself, the “object identifier’s” (all of the above noted object identifiers) metes and bounds are indefinitely defined and understood in terms of any recited data-holding, tracking element/functionality given thereto.
Examiner notes Applicant’s general discussion in par.[0066] that an “object identifier” refers to a “digital identifier” for its respective input material.
This discussion is both generic and presents another vague term in that of “digital identifier,” while also not being commensurate with the recitation of the claimed object identifier which comprises input material data and at least one performance parameter, wherein this disclosure appears to speak to merely a label and without provision/functionality to storing/including such data.
The general discussion in pars. [0032,0037] (of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0024839) to “…the appended object identifier is thus enriched with information that can be used not only for tracking the chemical product and/or its specific components…but also the specific process data that were responsible…” is drawn to a general postulation of its “usage” that is prophetic in nature to the desired effect/result without providing clear metes and bounds to the object identifier itself that provides for these effects let alone the actions therewith that correspond with such “usage” (as by “can be used”). This discussion speaks to downstream applications with the object identifier and not to particularly defining the metes and bounds of the object identifier itself.
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 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 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.
Regarding claim 8, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or if such a recitation is merely optional.
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.
Similarly, this is seen with the claimed “signals” that are indefinitely provided for herein as the claims are absent any sensor(s) for producing any such signal(s).
Claim 21 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 claim 21 are indefinitely defined herein. As discussed above, 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.
The claim indefinitely provides for a system.
The claim does not provide a system of physical elements (i.e. an industrial production plant comprises of various spaced equipment and leading from a material input to a product output with sensors/transmitters thereat to relay and inform/implement various controlled monitoring of product and equipment conditions) to be monitored and affected by a operatively linked computer-based control system to monitor as desired.
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.
It is further unclear what is meant by “the start signal and the stop signal are used to delimit the subset between a start time and end-time respectively…” What are these start time and end time? Are these merely the times at which the data was collected? Is this with respect to a production process at its outset as opposed to the completion of the production process (or likewise with respect to a monitoring process going from an initial monitoring period to an end point of the monitoring period)? As discussed above, the claims are absent any infrastructure to monitoring a production process.
Clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Initially, Examiner asserts that, as previously discussed in the Interview of December 5th, 2025, the indication of allowable subject matter was provided in error given that the pending claims were rejected under 35 USC 101 which precludes such an indication of allowable subject matter.
Applicant's arguments filed January 15th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1-18, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 USC 101, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that the claims are amended to recite “wherein the zone presence signal is generated…by performing a zone-time transformation, which transformation maps…” and thus the claimed invention is not merely an abstract idea because it is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner asserts that the recitation “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 argument is not persuasive because in order to overcome the 101 rejection, the purported improvement cannot be the abstract idea but must be in a particular technology (See paragraphs 4-7 of MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Further, it is noted that the claims themselves are not implemented themselves within any sort of production process/production plant for manufacturing a chemical product, as these aspects are not positively claimed and are given as intended usage recitations within the claims.
Applicant further asserts that the interface and computing unit do not set forth a generic computer and is a particular machine.
Applicant asserts that “the transformation’s structure, inputs, and outputs coupled with the industrial plant’s discrete zones, provide the requisite meaningful integration into a technological process.”
Examiner asserts that no such “transformation structure” is claimed, nor are there any particular “inputs” and “outputs,” and these are also without particular positive provision and connection with an industrial plant’s discrete zones.
As discussed above, the claims (as in all of the independent claims and dependent claims thereof) are without positive provision to active steps a production process or the physical infrastructure therefore manufacturing a chemical product.
The claims do not positively necessitate the industrial plant and its particular “zones,” (and even as assumed as zones construed with positive physical infrastructure to the various reactors, flow components, material processing components, sensors, etc…) let alone particular chemical production control therewith that is carried out to produce a desired product.
As discussed above in the action-
These elements of an interface and a computing unit 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 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, 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 amended provision of comprising “a computing unit” further does not suffice as seen above.
The claims remain drawn to abstract ideas of assess/evaluating data to ascertain a relative performance that can be accomplished through mental steps, and the added abstract idea of the amended “zone-time transformation…” that is drawn to mathematical concepts (Step 2A, Prong 1), wherein the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), and wherein the recited steps/computer configured actions are provided at a high level of generality and drawn to routine and conventional data processing, and in which the step of “appending…” (and likewise “append” and “append” in independent cls. 21&22) is drawn to extra-solution activity.
Applicant further asserts that the “zone-time transformation…” as provided previously in dependent claim 5 and herein amended to be included into the independent claims 1, 21, and 22, is clear.
Applicant asserts that the claims are amended to recite that it maps at least one property related to the input material to the specific equipment zone via time-dependent signals from the real-time process data.
Examiner asserts that this does not address the above-cited issues of clarity with respect to the language in the claims as previously discussed in the action as it pertained to claim 5, wherein the amended claim language herein is likewise to that of prior claim 5. The claims remain indefinitely defined in this aspect for the particular discussion reiterated above in the body of the action, and further noting that the claims do not necessitate any such real-time process data and there is no input material nor equipment/equipment zone positively provided that is being assessed during a production process. The recited “mapping” remains indefinitely defined herein and the specification does not remedy this for the above-discussed reasons in the body of the action.
With regards to claims 1-18, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 USC 112 b/2nd, Applicant traverses the rejection.
With regard to the previously-discussed issues of clarity with an “upstream object identifier,” “historical object identifier,” and “sampling object identifier,” Applicant asserts that the terms have been further defined in the claims to include “a globally unique identifier.”
Examiner assets that the further adjective applied to designate such does not remedy the issues of clarity nor does Applicant’s remarks address the particular concerns previously provided in this section of the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 b/2nd.
Applicant further asserts that the recited “monitoring a production process” is clearly provided as the present amendments anchor the method and system to “an industrial plant comprising a plurality of physically separated equipment zones” and thus provides active steps contrary to Examiner’s contentions.
Examiner assets that discussion to such “industrial plant….”is provided within the “for” recitation of the preamble of the claims that amounts to intended usage recitations, and none of the claims positively provide the industrial plant nor its particular equipment/equipment zones.
Examiner asserts that no such industrial plant comprising a plurality of physically separated equipment zones is positively provided to the method/system/non-transitory computer readable medium.
As discussed above -
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, with regard to claim 21 and an additional lack of clarity with respect to codifying the claim under the statutory class of invention as a “system” without providing interrelated elements thereof that make up such an apparatus.
Applicant asserts that the claims are amended to recite that the system comprises a computing unit.
Examiner asserts that this remains to provide a “computer processor” as a whole to the “system,” which does not suffice as a system claim. The claim includes inferential and intended use recitations to a production process for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant, but none of the production process, industrial plant, equipment/equipment zones are provided as positive elements of the claim.
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 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