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 12th, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 16 is canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The recitations to “upstream object identifier,” “downstream object identifier,” and “globally unique identifier” are herein treated as nominal designations to the respective “object identifier,” “identifier” 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,” and “globally unique” has no particular bearing beside being drawn to an adjective to the “identifier.” The “object identifiers,” “identifier” 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 1-15 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, 14, and 15, including alone and as an ordered combination with their respective dependent claims.
The recited “determinations” provide judgments that amount to mental steps afforded to the human mind that may be attributed to making an assessment of the data and 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 data gathering steps (i.e. “providing, via an interface, an upstream object identifier…” and “providing, via an output interface, the zone-specific control settings…”) do not add meaningful limitation to the method of claim 1 and are drawn to extra-solution activity.
Further, the amended recitation to “automatically applying…” is drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity, wherein the recitation amounts to mere signal generation. The claims are without positive recitations to equipment (and likewise with the “industrial plant” as a whole) that is operated to produce a product, let alone particular actuators or equipment that affects actions thereof. The claimed “automatically applying…” is drawn to mere signal generation as the claims do not afford such an implementation in which a particular, condition-responsive control to affect equipment/actuators to produce a desired product is provided.
Similarly, the recitation “receiving, at the computing unit, sensor feedback…” is drawn to mere data reception that is drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity.
As discussed above, the equipment/equipment zones/actuators to produce a product are not a positive element of the claims and their “implementation” with such “zone-specific control settings” is not positively provided, nor are any sensor(s) therewith to correlate and provide in any way shape or form the “sensor feedback.” The recitation is drawn to mere data reception that is drawn to insignificant 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 data gathering steps that amount to extra solution activity, and the remaining steps (i.e. “determining, via the computing unit, a set or process and/or operation parameters based on the upstream object identifier…” and “determining, via the computing unit, zone-specific control settings for each…) are drawn to the abstract idea itself.
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 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 output interface, these 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, computing unit, and output interface 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));
This is likewise seen to the amended recitations of “automatically applying…” and “receiving…sensor feedback…” that are recited at a high level of generality, and in which generalized automated control of actuators/equipment and sensors to inform conditions is not unique to Applicant’s abstract idea at-hand, as it is drawn to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. 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 14 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 data interfaces and a general computer as likewise discussed 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 1-15 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, 14, and 15 (and dependent claims thereof) are indefinitely defined.
Herein, it is unclear what encompasses an “object identifier” (and including both the “upstream” and “downstream” designations).
Besides being drawn to data itself, the “object identifier’s” 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.[0076] 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.
This is similarly seen as in claims 7 and 13, 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, 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 indefinitely understood what is meant by “appending” data to the object identifier.
The lack of clarity further stems to the relative “upstream” and “downstream” designations given thereto (see cl. 11 for “downstream object identifier”) 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 “upstream” and “downstream.”
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 provision to provide those settings for controlling the production of 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 is “plurality of separated equipment zones are not positively provided as a part of the respective method, system, and computer program.
Claims 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of claims 4-13 are indefinitely defined herein.
Claim 4 (and dependents thereof) relate to real-time process data from one or more of the equipment zones, however, such equipment zones are not a positive element of the claimed methodology.
Base independent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is drawn to a method of controlling a production process for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant, in which the method does not positively provide for any of 1) producing a chemical product and 2) an industrial plant.
The method of claim 1 is drawn to those “controlling” steps provided in the body of the claim to “providing,” “determining,” “determining”, and “providing” that amounts to data processing steps including culminating with that providing of data appended with functionality of “for controlling the production of the chemical product…”
The independent claim 1 is absent any particular implementation of such data with respect to positive provision of an industrial plant nor manufacturing a chemical product such as with particular affected control imparted along a production line with respect to physically-separated equipment zones whose performance is altered/initiated by way of such ascertained data.
This likewise follows in claim 4, in which the methodology has no basis for any such reception of real-time process data of one or more of the equipment zones as they are not of the claimed methodology and are merely drawn to an inferential, functional recitation in connection to the computing method (i.e. given by “…for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant…”).
Claim 4 recites “receiving…real-time process data from one or more equipment zones…” wherein such zones (that are a part of the “industrial plant”) are not positively provided elements of the methodology, and further, the methodology is absent any means for producing real-time process data that may then be transmitted and received by the computing unit. By this, the recitation “receiving…real-time process data from one or more equipment zones…” is indefinitely provided for.
Does Applicant intend to claim that system of elements (i.e. industrial plant and its various equipment) along with various sensors at the various equipment along with transmitter elements in operative communication with the computing unit to inform the computing unit of the data from the sensors as the material is processed from an input to a downstream product output?
The subsequent dependent claims 5-13 likewise incur these issues, wherein the claims indefinitely provide for such an implied system for manufacturing a chemical product to have its various equipment or “zones” assessed (i.e. assumingly by sensor(s) of sorts thereat, which are also not recited herein) and then selectively affecting such equipment/zones by the computing unit and its realized data in order to affect a production process (i.e. from upstream inlet to downstream outlet at the product-formation end) in any manner.
Claims 9 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.
With regard to claim 9, the recitation “the respective associated value of the desired performance parameter” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 merely provides a step to computing at least one zone-specific performance parameters, in which it is unclear what is meant by “respective” above. Does Applicant intend some additional delineation to “at least one” zone-specific performance parameter and such as with a particular equipment (not positively recited herein)?
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.
The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinitely defined 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 par.[0047] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0450395 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 claim 10 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. [0041,0099,0100-0105,0184,0196,0294,0331], 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 claim 10.
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.
Claims 11-13 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 methodology of claims 11-13 are indefinitely defined as they pertain to the discussed physically separated equipment zones and flow movement during the production process from an upstream equipment zone to the downstream equipment zone as it pertains to the added steps of the method recited herein.
As discussed above as in cls. 4-10, the claimed methodology does not positively provide a system to be under investigation and affected by any sort of computer-based quality control for producing a desired target.
Herein, and as likewise discussed above, “physically separated equipment zones” (including the recited “downstream equipment zone”) are not positively claimed elements of the method and are merely inferentially related to the functionality of the method itself.
Further, “upstream” and “downstream” have no particular bearing herein as the method is drawn to providing data, determining and providing process/operation parameters, and does not involve implementation of a procedure starting form an input and flowing through a sequence events through various equipment to an outlet product formation end so as to impart any meaning to “downstream equipment zone” (and likewise with inferred “upstream equipment zone”). This equivocally applies to “upstream” and “downstream” object identifiers, wherein such recitation is merely given as a nominal designation to the identifier and is without bearing on location within a sought process-flow arrangement.
Claim 14 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 14 are indefinitely defined herein. As discussed above, while independent claim 14 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 equipment and leading from a material input to a product output with sensors/transmitters thereat to relay and inform/implement various control parameters/settings) to be monitored and affected by a operatively linked computer-based control system to produce a product as-desired.
Instead, the body of the claim is drawn to the general data interfaces and a computing unit that are absent any connection with production infrastructure so as to affect any sort of controlled process for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant.
The present claim is drawn to computing infrastructure absent any connection to a production plant to affect any amount of control to a produced product therewithin.
Clarification is required.
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) 1-4, and 11-14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Taira et al. (US 2019/0258233), hereafter Taira.
With regard to claim 1, Taira discloses a method for controlling a production process for manufacturing a chemical product comprising providing, via an interface (interfaces shown in fig. 3, for example), an upstream object identifier comprising a globally unique identifier (i.e. product data D1, product abnormality data D1n, equipment abnormality data D3n in fig. 3) comprising input material data (par.[0062] wherein inspection device 50a is for acquiring the raw material number to allow the number to store in product data wherein the material identifier is stored in product data D1) and at least one desired performance parameter (product abnormality data D1n, equipment abnormality data D3n), and the upstream object identifier is stored in a memory storage (as implicitly provided given the implementation with a processor/computer) as recited therein. Taira further discloses determining, via the computing unit, a set of process and/or operation parameters based on the upstream object identifier and the at least one performance parameter (see par.[0100] “[a]ny product of the product data D1 is detected/judged on the product in progress in the production line….then when any product abnormality occurs…”), and determining, via the computing unit, zone-specific control settings for each of the equipment zones based on the determined set of process and/or operation parameters (D3n) and historical data (traced data) (par.[0100] with respect to the traced data, wherein both or one of the product abnormality data and equipment abnormality data is identified and the production step causing any product abnormality is further identified), and providing, via an output interface, the zone-specific control settings (par.[0100] machine parameters of particular production lines 20/zones are adjusted) for controlling as recited therein (par.[0103] that discloses providing particular machine parameters relating to an abnormal region in the production equipment are adjusted to restore the abnormal region).
Further, as amended herein, Taira discloses “automatically applying…” as in cls. 1, 14, and 15 as seen in pars.[0100-0103] as well as in cl. 10 of Taira, which recites “….wherein in the step of restoring a production equipment, an abnormal region in the production equipment is automatically restored by feedback control.”
Further, Taira discloses “receiving, at the computing unit, sensor feedback… as in cls. 1, 14, and 15 as seen in pars.[0067,0102] in which a sensor 60 provides sensor feedback from the equipment zones to verity implementation of the zone-specific control settings as by informing abnormalities/lack thereof of the product as to its shape or defects therewith (i.e. without sensor feedback to a defect constitutes verification of implementation).
For likewise reasons as discussed above, Taira commensurately provides a system as in claim 14 wherein the body of the claim is likewise to that of claim 1 and Taira provides a “system for controlling…” in as much as recited and required herein. With regard to claim 2, Examiner notes that the recitation is narrative to the designation/naming provided to the data and remains to amount to data, which is commensurately disclosed by Taira (and further noting that Taira discloses in pars.[0070-0071] a data collection unit 70 having a data collection network 25 arranged in each line network 21 in each production line 20 such that the data separately taken for each equipment can be arranged in the data in the same time series). With regard to claim 3, Taira discloses executing, using the zone-specific control settings, the production process (par.[0103], for example). With regard to claim 4, as best understood, Taira discloses receiving, at the computing unit, real-time process data (e.g. sensor data) from one or more of the equipment zones as claimed (par.[0067]; data collection unit 70 with product data (D1A, D1B, etc…) obtained in the inspection device and the production pattern data D2 detected in the sensor 60 are stored in association with each other. Examiner further notes that as discussed above the method does not necessitate any such system under investigation, let alone sensor(s) therewithin for reporting such data to be received. With regards to claims 11-13, as best understood, Taira discloses likewise steps with respect to the downstream equipment zone (downstream production line as another separate one of the production lines) as recite above and provided in claims 11-13 (see fig. 3 and disclosure thereto). Examiner further notes that the “physically separated equipment zones” are not positively claimed elements of the method and are merely inferentially related to the functionality of the method itself. Further, “upstream” and “downstream” have no particular bearing herein as the method is drawn to providing data, determining and providing process/operation parameters, and does not involve implementation of a procedure starting form an input and flowing through a sequence events through various equipment to an outlet product formation end so as to impart any meaning to “downstream equipment zone” (and likewise with inferred “upstream equipment zone”). This equivocally applies to “upstream” and “downstream” object identifiers, wherein such recitation is merely given as a nominal designation to the identifier and is without bearing on location within a sought process-flow arrangement.
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) 5-7, and 9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Steinhilper et al. (US 2006/0136085), hereafter Steinhilper.
Taira has been discussed above.
Taira does not specifically disclose determining, via the computing unit, a subset of the real-time process data and appending to the upstream object identifier the subset of real-time process data as in claims 5 and 6. Taira also does not specifically disclose computing, via the computing unit, at least one zone-specific performance parameter of the chemical product related to the upstream identifier based on the subset of the real-time process data as in cl. 7. With regard to claim 9, Taira does not specifically disclose controlling, via the computing unit, the production process such that the difference between the at least one zone-specific performance parameter and their respective associated value of the desired performance parameter is minimized.
Steinhilper discloses historical analysis of zone performance to provide the preferred range for the number of upstream and downstream products for each particular segment, machine, or station, and discloses that the product line and data retrieval may be provided by segmentation of the system to monitor smaller portions thereof to provide indication on causes of machine related losses (abstract; pars.[0033,0035,0037], for example). Steinhilper further discloses computing zone-specific performance parameters based on the segmented data (subset or real-time process data) to ascertain an analysis of low to peak performance for one or more machines of the segment (par.[0042], for example). Steinhilper further discloses optimizing production based on analysis of the historical performance of a segment of the production line (par.[0010], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira to include determining a subset of the real-time process data and appending such to the object identifier such as suggested by the analogous art of Steinhilper in order to provide a more granular data set in defining the upstream object identifier and thus further detail to the performance of the system by viewing in a segmented fashion that may better inform inadequacies at particular places within the production equipment, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira to compute, via the computing unit at least one zone-specific performance parameter of the chemical product related to the upstream object identifier with the subset of real-time process data such as suggested by the analogous art of Steinhilper in order to better inform the relative quality of performance to a particular zone in its production to the desired product. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira to control the production process such that the difference between at least one zone-specific performance parameter and their respective associated value is minimized such as suggested by Steinhilper in which the disclosed optimization speaks to a desire to minimize such a difference in order to provide such quality control and this would be appreciated by Taira for likewise providing an optimized and highest available quality control to produce the product as closely to the desired specifications.
Claim(s) 5-7, and 9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Thomsen et al. (EP 3696622), hereafter Thomsen.
Taira has been discussed above.
Taira does not specifically disclose determining, via the computing unit, a subset of the real-time process data and appending to the upstream object identifier the subset of real-time process data as in claims 5 and 6. Taira also does not specifically disclose computing, via the computing unit, at least one zone-specific performance parameter of the chemical product related to the upstream identifier based on the subset of the real-time process data as in cl. 7. With regard to claim 9, Taira does not specifically disclose controlling, via the computing unit, the production process such that the difference between the at least one zone-specific performance parameter and their respective associated value of the desired performance parameter is minimized.
Thomsen discloses control of an industrial automation system (abstract). Thomsen discloses determining, via the computing unit, a subset of the real-time process data and appending to the upstream object identifier the subset of real-time process data (pars.[0022,0026], fig. 2, for example). Thomsen further discloses computing, via the computing unit, at least one zone-specific performance parameter of the chemical product related to the upstream identifier based on the subset of the real-time process data (pars.[0035,0114], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira to include determining a subset of the real-time process data and appending such to the object identifier such as suggested by the analogous art of Thomsen in order to provide a more granular data set in defining the upstream object identifier and thus further detail to the performance of the system by viewing in a more detailed fashion that may better inform inadequacies at particular places within the production equipment, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira to compute, via the computing unit at least one zone-specific performance parameter of the chemical product related to the upstream object identifier with the subset of real-time process data such as suggested by the analogous art of Thomsen in order to better inform the relative quality of performance to a particular zone in its production to the desired product. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira to control the production process such that the difference between at least one zone-specific performance parameter and their respective associated value is minimized such as suggested by Thomsen in which the disclosed optimization (see pars.[0187,0188,0195], for example) speaks to a desire to minimize such a difference in order to provide such quality control and this would be appreciated by Taira for likewise providing an optimized and highest available quality control to produce the product as closely to the desired specifications.
Claim(s) 10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Steinhilper as applied to claims 5-7, and 9 above, and further in view of Scolnicov et al. (US 2013/0332397), hereafter Scolnicov.
Taira/Steinhilper does not specifically disclose utilizing a machine learning model trained with historical data to compute the at least one zone-specific performance parameter.
Scolnicov discloses utilizing a machine learning model trained with historical data to optimize and accurately predict parameters within the monitored system (par.[0083], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira/Steinhilper to utilize a machine learning model trained with historical data to compute the at least one zone-specific performance parameter such as taught by the analogous art of Scolnicov in order to provide accurate predictive analysis that better forecasts the zone-specific parameter.
Claim(s) 10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Thomsen as applied to claims 5-7, and 9 above, and further in view of Scolnicov.
Taira/Thomsen does not specifically disclose utilizing a machine learning model trained with historical data to compute the at least one zone-specific performance parameter.
Scolnicov has been discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Taira/Thomsen to utilize a machine learning model trained with historical data to compute the at least one zone-specific performance parameter such as taught by the analogous art of Scolnicov in order to provide accurate predictive analysis that better forecasts the zone-specific parameter.
Claim(s) 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Buss et al. (USPN 7,006,084), hereafter Buss.
Taira has been discussed.
Tiara discloses that recited functionality provided to the computing unit, but 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 Taira 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 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1-15 rejected under 35 USC 101, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that the claims, as amended, include additional elements of “automatically applying…” and “receiving, at the computing unit, sensor feedback…” which transform the claims into a practical application.
Applicant further asserts that using the sensor feedback to verify implementation provides an additional practical application to improve functioning of the manufacturing equipment.
As in Step 2A, Prong 2 Further, the recitation to “automatically applying…” is drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity, wherein the recitation amounts to mere signal generation. The claims are without positive recitations to equipment (and likewise with the “industrial plant” as a whole) that is operated to produce a product, let alone particular actuators or equipment that affects actions thereof. The claimed “automatically applying…” is drawn to mere signal generation as the claims do not afford such an implementation in which a particular, condition-responsive control to affect equipment/actuators to produce a desired product is provided.
Similarly, the recitation “receiving, at the computing unit, sensor feedback…” is drawn to mere data reception that is drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity.
As discussed above, the equipment/equipment zones/actuators to produce a product are not a positive element of the claims and their “implementation” with such “zone-specific control settings” is not positively provided, nor are any sensor(s) therewith to correlate and provide in any way shape or form the “sensor feedback.” The recitation is drawn to mere data reception that is drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, as in Step 2B, this is likewise seen to the amended recitations of “automatically applying…” and “receiving…sensor feedback…” that are recited at a high level of generality, and in which generalized automated control of actuators/equipment and sensors to inform conditions is not unique to Applicant’s abstract idea at-hand as in Step 2A, Prong 2, as it is drawn to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
With regards to claims 1-15 rejected under 35 USC 112 b/2nd, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that “upstream object identifier” has been amended to recite that it is “a globally unique identifier for input material data” and is stored in a memory storage.
Examiner asserts that this merely provides a nested recitation to the “upstream object identifier” itself in a likewise, additionally codifying such “object identifier” as a globally unique one, and which does not provide clarity to the prior issues raised and as discussed herein above in the body of the action.
Applicant further asserts that the amendments to “automatically applying” and “receiving…sensor feedback…” establish that the computing unit actively controls physical equipment and receives feedback form an industrial system.
Examiner asserts that these recitation do not provide this as the claims lack any positive provision to physical equipment/industrial system and its particulars to be controllably-affected in any manner, as well as being deficient with respect to any sensor(s) so as to afford any functionality as it pertains to the general “verify implementation.”
Applicant further asserts that the “equipment zones” are established as integral elements of the claimed method and in which such zones are actively controlled.
Similar to the above discussion, Examiner maintains that no such zones that are actively controlled are provided to the claims.
The body of these claims is drawn to data reception, determination of settings/parameters therewith, and a general provision to provide those settings for controlling the production of 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 is “plurality of separated equipment zones are not positively provided as a part of the respective method, system, and computer program.
With regard to claim 8, Applicant asserts that the “zone-time transformation” is definite as seen through par.[0047] of the specification.
Examiner asserts that the prior rejection has already referenced this section of Applicant’s disclosure, in which it has been set forth that this section does not provide clarifying disclosure to the recited “zone-time transformation.”
Herein, Applicant has not provided any further, substantive remarks or arguments beyond that of the citation of par.[0047], and by this, Examiner concordantly maintains the prior rejection of the claim.
With regard to claim 10, Applicant asserts that the recitation does not invoke USC 112 F/6th as it does not utilize “means for.”
Examiner asserts that no such rigid requirement is provided by 35 USC 112 F/6th. Herein, the recitation is drawn to a computer-implemented 112 F recitation, in which a “machine learning model” is a generic placeholder that is provided with the functionality of computing at least one zone-specific performance parameter (generic placeholder + functionality, in which the recitation lacks sufficient structure thereto the recited functionality amounts to the “means for” recitation).
See also below as in MPEP 2181–
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This invokes 35 USC 112 F/6th as a computer-implemented “means for” recitation in which the specification is viewed so as to apprise to make clear the metes and bounds of the structure (herein, the particular algorithm(s)) that provides for the recited functionality.
Applicant has failed to provide a showing of the structure, as in the particular algorithm(s) that provide such a machine learning model for its particularly recited functionality.
Further, the generalized discussion to the “historical data comprising historical object identifiers…” is merely descriptive to data and is insufficient in setting forth the structure of the machine learning model for its particular functionality.
With regards to claims 11-13, Applicant traverses the rejection and asserts that the claims are definite as claim 1 positively recites the physically separated zones.
Examiner asserts that, as discussed above, no such physically separated zones are positively recited, and the rejection and its particulars discussed above in the body of the action are maintained. The claims do not establish any sort of production line let alone a particular one in terms of relatively upstream/downstream with respect to constituent production equipment therewithin.
With regard to claim 14, Applicant traverses the rejection and asserts that the claim has been amended to include physical elements of the system.
Examiner asserts that the amendment to “wherein the system is configured to automatically apply…” does not positively provide physical elements of the system and is drawn to a functionality given to the “system,” wherein such “system” is not a system as it is recited with respect to data interfaces and a computing unit. The rejection is maintained as discussed herein and above in the body of the action.
With regards to claims 1-4 and 11-14 rejected under 35 USC 102a1 as being anticipated by Taira, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Applicant asserts that Taira does not disclose “automatically applying…” as amended herein, as Taira focuses on manual restoration by operators (pars.[0100,0103]).
Examiner initially asserts that Applicant’s position of Taira being drawn to manual intervention is without support, and is unfounded in the cited pars.[0100,0103].
Examiner further asserts that the claims themselves do not positively provide any particular active control of equipment/actuators, as the claims (as in the method of cl. 1, the system of cl. 14, and the non-transitory CRM of cl. 15) do not provide any positively claimed equipment/industrial plant for producing a product and particular condition-responsive control thereof.
As previously discussed, it is seen in Taira that the production apparatus 10 has a plurality of production line 20s having the plurality of production equipment 40 for producing a product 90, and in which the equipment data from the production equipment is directly transmitted to a main central processing unit 72 of the data collection unit from an equipment main control CPU 41 and equipment auxiliary control (pars.[0062-0065+]).
This is likewise seen in pars.[0100-0103] as well as in cl. 10 of Taira, which recites “….wherein in the step of restoring a production equipment, an abnormal region in the production equipment is automatically restored by feedback control.”
Applicant further asserts that Taira does not disclose “receiving, at the computing unit, sensor feedback…” as amended herein.
Examiner asserts that Taira discloses such as claimed as seen in pars.[0067,0102] in which a sensor 60 provides sensor feedback from the equipment zones to verity implementation of the zone-specific control settings as by informing abnormalities to the product as to its shape or defects therewith (i.e. without sensor feedback to a defect constitutes verification of implementation).
Applicant further asserts that Taira product data and equipment abnormality data cannot reasonably be considered the claimed upstream object identifier comprising a globally unique identifier for input material data and at least one desired performance parameter as claimed.
Examiner maintains, as best understood herein, Taira provides a commensurate upstream object identifier comprising a globally unique identifier as Taira commensurately provides such data in as much as claimed herein and is equivocally codified/labeled as an upstream object identifier comprising a globally unique identifier. Further, the recitation “…for input material data and at least one desired performance parameter…” is drawn to an intended functionality therewith, and as Taira discloses the commensurate structure of the upstream object identifier comprising a globally unique identifier, such likewise object identifier in Taira is fully capable of being for material data and at least one desired process parameter as this remains to be drawn to data, which Taira likewise discloses and such data may be codified as claimed (see also discussion above in the body of the action). Herein, Applicant has failed to structurally distinguish the claims from that of the prior art in which Taira discloses a commensurately claimed structure of the upstream object identifier comprising a globally unique identifier.
As such, claims 1-4 and 11-14 are maintained rejected under 35 USC 102a1 as being anticipated by Taira.
Applicant asserts that the remaining secondary references do not cure such deficiencies in Taira.
As discussed above, as there are no such deficiencies with respect to Taira, the rejection of the remaining claims under 35 USC 103 with respect to the above-cited prior art are maintained for this reason and those discussed above in the body of the action.
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
Prosecution Insights