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 March 1st, 2026. Claims 1-10, 15-18, 25, and 26 are pending. Claims 11-14 and 19-24 are canceld.
Claim Interpretation
The recitations to “upstream object identifier” and “downstream object identifier” (as well as appended to the “computing unit,” “data, and ”“equipment”) are herein treated as nominal designations to the respective “object identifier” or otherwise, likewise recitation, as 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 “downstream.” The “object identifiers” themselves are treated as labels/designations associated to their recited data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 15-18, 25, and 26 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 data and a desired end-product to pick and choose process parameters/settings to achieve the desired end-product that can be accomplished through mental steps.
This seen in all of independent claims 1, 25, and 26, including alone and as an ordered combination with their respective dependent claims.
The recited “providing…” amounts to a judgment that can be accomplished through mental steps afforded to the human mind that may be attributed to making an assessment of the desired end-product to pick and choose process conditions and parameters based on the user’s prior experience.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) because the provision to the general intended use of the downstream settings being useable for manufacturing the chemical product at the downstream industrial plant do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and is drawn to extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B) because there are no additional elements beyond the above-discussed extra-solution activity and the abstract idea itself (embodied through the “providing…settings…settings are determined based on…). Examiner further notes that a particular industrial plant with various equipment/sensors under investigation for particular, adaptive/predictive control are not provided by the claims herein.
This is likewise seen with amendments to claims 1, 25, 26 to “transmitting the downstream control settings…” that amounts to extra-solution activity as it is mere signal generation. No particular process control with respect to production equipment of an industrial plant to produce a particular product is required, and this amounts to mere signal generation. The claims do not necessitate any such actively provided “downstream production process” that is actively affected by various control signal-actuated elements of a production system.
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 at a high level of generality, and further determinations that may be accomplished through mental steps.
Examiner further notes that while the claims have recited that the various steps have been done by a computing unit such steps could have been done mentally and further, general purpose computer as recited is not a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b), I.
The recited computing unit(s) 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 element of a computing unit(s) amounts 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 25 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 provision of data.
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 1-10, 15-18, 25, and 26 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 recitation to “is a digital data structured stored in memory…” is drawn to new matter in the claims.
This recitation is not supported by the disclosure. Examiner notes that usage of “digital identifier” in par.[0111] (Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0341838), but this is not concordant with the amended recitation.
Examiner further notes that Applicant’s remarks made herein do not provide a particular passage of the specification for which support is found.
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 1-10, 15-18, 25, and 26 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, 25, and 26 (and dependent claims thereof) are indefinitely defined.
Herein, it is unclear what encompasses a “downstream object identifier,” or an “object identifier” in general, wherein its metes and bounds are indefinitely defined.
Besides being drawn to data itself, its metes and bounds are indefinitely defined and understood in terms of any desired labeling and tracking element/functionality given thereto.
Examiner notes Applicant’s general discussion in par.[0111] 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 precursor data, wherein this disclosure appears to speak to merely a label and without provision/functionality to storing/including such data.
This is likewise seen with respect to the recitation of “data object” as in claim 4 an dependents thereof in which the metes and bounds of this term are unclearly defined and understood herein and through the specification.
This is similarly seen as in claims 9-14, and 18 wherein the recited functionalities with respect to the downstream object identifier/upstream object identifier of determining control settings, being provided by the upstream control unit and being appended with data from the upstream identifier, and including a prediction and/or control logic are indefinitely defined and 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, it is unclear how a “digital identifier” allows for any of the above functionalities which go well beyond that of labeling.
The lack of clarity stems to the relative “downstream” designations given thereto as the claims are absent any production flow-sequence from an input to a material output and defining relatively therewithin particular points in the process flow to correlate with “downstream.”
This is likewise seen with respect to the “downstream industrial plant,” “at least one downstream equipment,” “downstream computing unit,” “downstream historical data,” “downstream control settings” (as well as “upstream industrial plant” utilized in dependent claims).
Examiner notes that a “downstream industrial plant” and its “at least one downstream equipment” are not a positively claimed elements of the method/system/computer program, let alone a relatively placed “upstream” industrial plant to establish a desired production path arrangement.
This is similarly seen with respect to “downstream computing unit,” “downstream historical data” and “downstream control settings” in which the method/system/computer program do not positively provide a downstream industrial plant (or any production plant) and thus also do not provide any equipment thereto (herein as “at least one downstream equipment”) wherein the recitations thereto are drawn to related functionality of the method/system/program.
The claims are absent a particular production flow path to establish “upstream” relative to “downstream” in terms of a point in the production process and are absent the physical infrastructure therewith (i.e. downstream industrial plant, upstream industrial plant, their computing unit(s), and which computing unit(s) produce relatively therein downstream/upstream data/historical data) that produces a product from an assumed inlet(s) to a product outlet(s) with intervening equipment and associated sensors/transmitters to inform various computer-controlled operations at particular portions of the production flow path.
Further, the metes and bounds of the claimed method, system, and computer program 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 “controlling a production process…” set forth in the preambles thereof.
The body of these claims is drawn to data reception, determination of settings/parameters therewith, and a general intended use recitation to the controlling settings being usable for manufacturing the chemical product.
However, there are no actual, active steps provided to affect any sort of control and merely providing settings does not affect any control to a process.
Further, the claims themselves are indefinitely defined for the ability to control production of a chemical product as the claims are absent any system for producing a chemical product to which computer-implemented control may be imparted. The industrial plant nor an equipment zone(s) are positively provided as a part of the respective method, system, and computer program.
Lastly, with respect to claim 1, the recitation “the precursor material” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims and thereby presents unclear metes and bounds to the claimed methodology; Examiner notes that the preamble of claim 1 establishes “at least one precursor material.”
Additionally, the amendments made herein to the recited “data driven model…” as in claims 1, 25, and 26 is indefinitely understood and renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear.
Likewise to prior discussion with now-canceled claims 11-14, Examiner assert that the written description fails to disclose the algorithm(s) for performing the claimed specific functions.
The specification is without particular discussion to a particular “data driven model trained using the downstream historical data”, and the vague and indefinite “using” thereof also provides a lack of clear metes and bounds.
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 claims 1, 25, and 26 (and downstream therefrom in dependents). Examiner notes the general and prophetic discussion in pars. [0085-0091,0131,0137,0138] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0341838, 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 downstream control settings based upon downstream historical data and modification data thereof disclosed, 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 the general usage of “object identifiers” to “train the machine learning model” and is without any particulars to that which has been developed and found for the present application and its sought functionalities as in claim 11-14.
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.
It is further noted that all of independent claims 1, 25, and 26 recite “providing settings…the settings are determined based on…” in which such recitation amounts to providing settings, wherein a particular determination protocol is not required and the recitations that follow in setting forth what these settings are “determined based on” is descriptive and does not provide particular steps/protocol for actively determining the settings.
Similar to that discussed above with respect to claim 1, the recitations in claim 2 to precursor material for processing by the equipment is indefinitely provided for as the claims lack the base infrastructure of such equipment to afford the ability of material to be inputted (to an assumed input) to the equipment.
The claimed methodology is drawn to providing settings that are useable for manufacturing a product in in which inputs of divided precursor material are indefinitely provided for as the methodology is drawn to a data processing that is without the confines of a particular manufacturing system.
Further, “the equipment” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims, wherein the claims previously utilize the language “at least one equipment.” Further, “the size of the package” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, as in claim 2, the metes and bounds of the sought methodology are indefinitely provided as the recitation “…for which considerably constant process parameters or equipment operation parameters can be provided by the equipment” is drawn to a vague, narrative discussion in which it is unclear what active step(s) are sought to be added to the methodology. Does Applicant intend a particular constant maintenance/readjustment of the provided “downstream control settings” such that the settings are corrected back and don’t deviate from that which has been previously provided? It is also noted that, as discussed above, there is no basis for inputting of materials into equipment of a system as the claims are drawn to a providing settings/data processing.
With regard to claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by “processing of the at least two packages…” Claim 1 provides control settings useable for manufacturing the chemical product, which reads on an intended usage and does not provide any actual, active steps to produce a chemical product.
Further, the claims do not provide any basis for input of any material, let alone packages thereof to be processed to produce a chemical product.
Lastly, the recitation “the at least two packages” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 3 depends from claim 1, wherein the recitation to at least two packages is found in claim 2.
With regard to claim 4, the provision of the trigger signal is indefinitely provided for as at least one equipment is not a positively claimed element of the method. The metes and bounds of what constitutes a “data object” are also indefinitely understood. The term “data object” is not a recognized term of art and the specification does not provide a definitive definition thereto. Examiner notes pars.[0250-0261], for example, in which general discussion is provided with discussion to “data objects” as various “packages” that does not remedy the lack of clarity and it remains unclear what constitutes a “data object.” Given that claim 4 speaks to data objects being generate in response to a trigger signal provided via the equipment, is the “data object” a control signal to affect an operation (i.e. affect an actuator for flowrate, heat, cooling, etc.) related to a sensor at the equipment resultant to some sort of threshold-based condition being met?
Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis to “the equipment” in claims 4 and 5 (claim 1 sets forth at least one downstream equipment), and “the output” lacks antecedent basis in claim 5.
Similar to the discussion of claim 4 above, claims 5-7 rely on sensor(s) related to equipment that are indefinitely provided for, an upstream computing/downstream computing unit that is indefinitely provided for. Further, as in claims 6 and 7, the provision to precursor material and further, with respect to being provided by a particular plant as in an upstream industrial plant is indefinitely provided for herein as the claimed methodology is absent a positive provision to such precursor material let alone particular incorporation and positive implementation of a system including an upstream industrial plant (and thereby assumingly a downstream industrial plant to breathe life into the “upstream” aspect). Independent claim 1 sets forth a methodology of providing control settings that are useable for manufacturing a product, and does not positively implement a production plant nor product/material streams therein to be processed in a particular manner throughout any upstream/downstream plant and constituent processing equipment thereof so as to create a particularly tailored and controlled end-product.
This is similarly seen throughout the claims wherein recitations to receiving process data with respect to an industrial plant, equipment, or equipment zone is indefinitely and unclearly provided for by the claims for at least those reasons discussed above. The claimed methodology does not present any such physical system (i.e upstream/downstream plant, constituent equipment/equipment zones, sensors for realizing data therefrom, etc…) to be under investigation, implemented with various settings/parameters, and receptive to data therefrom sensors to inform further, subsequent predictive control thereto the infrastructure to produce any sort of product.
With regard to claim 9, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinitely defined as the claims refers to a past production process by way of recitation to “…upstream process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing the precursor material at the upstream industrial plant” that have no bearing in the claims in which no such upstream industrial plant is provided let alone positively recited and particular active steps required therewith in manufacturing precursor material.
Regarding claim 15, 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.
The above equivocally applies to the “system” of claim 25, wherein the claimed system is a system in name only as it is without positive provision to any physical infrastructure to a production system (i.e. upstream/downstream industrial plant, equipment, equipment zones, etc…) and the body of the claim is likewise to that of claim 1 in presenting a provision of particular data being assigned.
This further calls into question the metes and bounds of the claims as they pertain to being assigned as a “system,” in which the claims do not present a system, and instead amounts to data appended with an intended usage statement.
Similar issues exist throughout the dependent claims. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 15, and 25, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Celli (WO 2020/003114).
With regard to claims 1 and 25, Celli discloses a method for controlling a downstream production process comprising (and likewise with respect to the system of claim 25 configured as recited therein) providing, at the downstream computing unit, a set of downstream control settings as recited therein (page 12, line 22+; page 30, line 14+, figs. 1-4, for example), the settings determined based on a downstream object identifier as claimed (page 30, line 14+ “characteristics of the input materials”), at least one downstream performance parameter as claimed (pg. 30, line 14+; “quality and defect parameters”), downstream historical data as claimed (pg. 30, line 14+; wherein the process, quality and defect parameters are historicized, and pg. 29, line 16+ and the predictive model interacting with historical data [first and second sets of historical data as disclosed therein] related to the process and product parameters), and the set of downstream control setting is usable for manufacturing the chemical product at the downstream industrial plant (pg. 30, line 14+ wherein the settings are transmitted and applied to the machines, for example; and wherein Examiner notes that such recitation is drawn to an intended use recitation not afforded patentable weight wherein the prior at of Celli provides commensurate settings in as much as recited and required herein and are thus fully capable of being used as claimed herein; and wherein the claims do not positively provide a method implemented to a production system of processing elements under computer-affected control to affect various aspects of the production system and its constituent equipment/chemical processors). With regard to claim 2, Celli discloses precursor material for processing divided into at least two packages wherein the size of a packed is fixed or determined based on precursor weight or amount and process parameters or equipment operation parameters therewith can be considerably constant as provided by the equipment (pg. 13, line 25 – pg. 14, line 19, pg. 17, line 23 – line 16, pg. 19, and discussion with respect to a “primary” roll and a “secondary” roll production). With regard to claim 3, Celli discloses the processing of at least two packages is managed by means of corresponding data objects each of which at least including an object identifier (pg. 12, line 22+ to the control device comprising a database system that comprises one or more sub-databases with information, as in product and process parameters, loaded before the start of production and acquired during the various processing steps, and wherein the product and process parameters can be associated with the unique code, as in a object identifier; pg. 14, line 9 to pg. 15, line 25, for example). With regard to claims 4 and 5, Celli discloses a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via the equipment, and wherein the trigger signal is provided in response to the output of a corresponding sensor arranged at each equipment (pg. 12, line 27 – pg. 13, line 24; a data object given as the data provided by the sensors at the equipment and/or a qualification of a “defect” therewith, and the trigger signal being provided in response to a corresponding signal from each of the equipment). With regard to claims 6 and 8, Celli discloses wherein at least some of the downstream control settings are determined by an upstream computing device as recited therein, and wherein at least one of the precursor materials is provided by the upstream industrial plant, and at least some of the downstream control settings are provided at a shared memory storage as recited therein (pg. 12, line 19+, for example). With regard to claim 7, Celli discloses that at least some of the downstream control settings are provided at a shared memory (as in a database) that is accessible by both upstream and downstream computing units (pg. 44, lines 25-29, for example). With regard to claims 8-10, Celli discloses that at least some of the downstream control settings are determined by the downstream computing unit and using an upstream object identifier as claimed (i.e. a sub-database thereof including product and process parameters) (page 12, line 22+; page 30, line 14+, figs. 1-4, for example). With regards to claims 11-14, Celli discloses that the plant includes trainable prediction logic for providing downstream control settings in as much as understood and recited herein (pg. 28, line 23 – line 15, pg. 32, for example). With regard to claim 15, Celli discloses executing, using the downstream control settings, the downstream production process as recited therein (and noting the “preferably” recitation is an optional discussion)(lines 19-26, pg.12, and wherein the system of Celli provides automated execution of the process parameters to produce the desired product).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli in view of Baseman et al. (US 2018/0292812), hereafter Baseman.
With regards to claims 16-18, Celli does not specifically disclose receiving real-time process data from one or more of the downstream equipment/zones as recited therein, and appending to the downstream object identifier the subset of downstream real-time process data and/or downstream process specific data.
Baseman discloses controlling multi-stage manufacturing processes with automated learning of feedback and feed forward control for product quality control utilizing both real-time data and historic product data (pars.[0017,0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Celli to provide receiving real-time process data from one or more of the downstream equipment/zones as recited therein, and appending to the downstream object identifier the subset of downstream real-time process data and/or downstream process specific data such as suggested by the analogous art of Baseman in order to provide a more dynamic and improved, automated quality control scheme to improve multi-stage manufacturing processes in which the unique code/object identifier in Celli is updated in the database so as to more accurately reflect present conditions to more precisely control the manufacturing to the desired end product as would be likewise appreciated in Celli.
Claim(s) 26, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli in view of Buss et al. (USPN 7,006,084), hereafter Buss.
Celli has been discussed.
Celli does not specifically provide the form a computer program product as claimed.
Buss discloses a method and system for computer-aided manufacturing measurement analysis (abstract). Buss discloses that the method may be implemented as computer-implemented process in which a microprocessor executes steps in response to a computer program contained in a storage medium, and further to this end, Buss discloses that the present invention can be embodied in the form of computer program code containing instructions embodied in tangible media, such as any computer-readable storage medium (lines 32-38, col. 3; lines 34-59, col. 5, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Celli to implement the methodology by way of a computer-program product as claimed such as suggested by the analogous art of Buss in order to provide a well-known implementation of a control scheme in the form of software in a computer-readable medium that affords flexibility in a product that may be marketed and/or applied to various production plants as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1-18, 25, and 26 rejected under 35 USC 101, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant assert that the claims, as amended, recite transmitting the downstream control settings to a plant control system to control the at least one downstream equipment during the downstream production process, and the claims require transmitting the settings to a plant control system that controls downstream equipment.
Examiner asserts that the industrial plant is not a positively claimed element of the method (nor its “downstream equipment”).
Examiner further asserts that the claims also remain to be deficient in providing any such “downstream production process” and in terms of a particularly-configured computer that actuates various equipment or parts thereof in a desired sequence or particular condition-responsive control that executes a “downstream production process” within an industrial plant/particular equipment thereof.
Examiner notes that, as discussed above, no such process control affecting equipment of an industrial plant in a downstream process is present, and it is also worth noting that the proffered “specific, practical application” in that of control settings provided to chemical manufacturing is not a specific, practical application.
This offering itself is provided at a high level of generality (and there is no particular production process/desired product achieved by particular, condition-responsive control actions, for example), and in which providing control settings to a control system that controls equipment is drawn to well-known and conventional practice in chemical production systems. This application is not unique to Applicant’s abstract idea at-hand.
The principal step of the independent claims 1, 25, and 26 is drawn to providing settings, and wherein further therefrom these settings are codified as being “determined based on…” and a provision that these “settings” are “usable for manufacturing…” (that provides a general intended use recitation to the controlling settings being usable for manufacturing the chemical product) that does not provide a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) nor significantly more (Step 2B) to the abstract idea at-hand.
It is also worth noting that as in the “system” of claim 25, the claim is codified by “configured to…” that provides for a mere capability to generate settings as claimed (i.e. to create data) and such system is without particular structural implementation therewith.
The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101 for these reasons and those additional reasons discussed above in the body of the action.
With regards to claims 1-18, 25, and 26 rejected under 35 USC 112b/2nd, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that to address the rejection, Applicant has made various amendments throughout the claims.
Examiner notes that Applicant does not particularly address the issues raised in the previous rejection of claims 1-18, 25, and 26 under 35 USC 112b/2nd paragraph beyond that of addressing it by the various amendments made herein.
To that end, Examiner asserts the claims, as discussed above in the body of the action, remain rejected under 35 USC 112 b/2nd (claims 11-14 are removed due to their cancelation).
Examiner further notes that the amendment to recite “the downstream object identifier is a digital data structure stored in a memory…” remains to provide unclear metes and bounds to the claim.
Pages 8-9 of the prior Office Action mailed on October 6th, 2025 similarly speaks to the term “digital identifier” used in the specification, in which the prior Office Action discusses that this term in and of itself is vague and inadequate in what encompasses this element.
This remains to be the case with digital data structure stored in a memory, and further noting that the recitation itself is drawn to new matter in the claims, wherein the specification does not provide basis for this recitation and the claims are concordantly rejected under 35 USC 112 a/1st as discussed above coincident with this amendment to the claims.
Further, as in claims 1, 25, and 26 with respect to the amended recitation “the set of downstream settings is determined based on a downstream data driven model trained using….” is rejected under 35 USC 112 b/2nd similarly as previously done with respect to now-canceled claims 11-14.
Examiner further notes that all of independent claims 1, 25, and 26 recite “providing settings…the set of settings are determined based on…” in which such recitation amounts to providing settings, wherein a particular determination methodology/protocol is not required and the recitations that follow in setting forth what these settings are “determined based on” are descriptive and do not provide particular steps/protocol for actively determining the settings.
It is further noted that the system of claim 25 does not even particularly necessitate such an active step as the system is merely configured to provide…which reads on a capability and not an actively necessitated step.
With regards to claims 1-15 and 25 rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Celli, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that Celli does not disclose “the set of downstream control setting is determined based on a downstream data driven model trained using the downstream historical data.”
Examiner asserts that Celli, commensurately as claimed and in as much as required herein, provides a set of downstream control settings.
As discussed above, the active step of claim 1 is drawn to providing a set of downstream control settings, wherein a particular determination methodology/protocol is not required and the recitations that follow in setting forth what these settings are “determined based on” are descriptive and do not provide particular steps/protocol for actively determining the settings.
Further, as discussed above, the system of claim 25 does not even particularly necessitate such an active step as the system is merely configured to provide…which reads on a capability and not an actively necessitated step.
Applicant asserts that Celli discusses a predictive model and asserts that Celli’s predictive model correlates upstream parameters with downstream defects to predict product defects.
Examiner asserts that as seen through the claims themselves and the above-discussion rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 b/2nd, the claimed “upstream” and “downstream” aspects are indefinitely defined, and the claims are without positive provision to any particular active data sequestering of any kind let alone “downstream,” “upstream,” and/or “historical.” The discussion therewith is predicated back to the provided settings, in which the claims do not set forth an active methodology/protocol for determining the settings, but instead set forth an active step of providing these settings followed by descriptive discussion as to what these settings are determined based on.
To this end, Celli commensurately and in as much as required and particularly understood herein, provides a set of downstream control settings and wherein such settings are “determined based on…” including that of relation with a “data driven model trained using the downstream historical data” as Celli likewise provides a data driven model that is trained based on historical data as discussed above in the body of the action, and wherein “downstream historical data” has no particular positive basis herein nor particular correlation within a system under investigation to breathe any further life into this data.
The claims remain to be drawn to a step of providing a set of downstream control settings, wherein the claims are absent a production plant under investigation and providing, storing, and utilizing data therewithin so as to inform various operations/settings thereof to produce a chemical product.
Additionally, as discussed above, the amended recitation to the “data driven model trained using the downstream historical data” itself is indefinitely provided both in the model itself and what encompasses its “using.”
Further, as in the “system” of claim 25, as discussed above, this does not require any active step(s) as it is a system (i.e. an apparatus-type claim) that is configured to…, in which Applicant has failed to provide a structural distinction from that of the claims to the applied prior art of Celli.
In addition, the reasons discussed above, it is maintained that Celli provides a system of commensurate structural detail in as much as recited and provided herein and is thus fully capable of those functionalities cited herein the remarks.
With regards to claims 16-18 and 26 rejected under 35 USC 103 over the above-cited prior art in the body of the action, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that the further prior art does not remedy the above-discussed deficiencies with respect to Celli.
Examiner assert that, as discussed above, there are no such deficiencies with respect to Celli, and claims 16-18 and 26 remain rejected for those reasons discussed above and in the body of the action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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