DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-12, filed March 9, 2026, with respect to the objections and rejections of claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-15, 20, 24, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 6, regarding the claim objections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Claims 36 and 37 are amended accordingly. Applicant requests withdrawal of the present claim objections.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore the claim objections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pgs. 6-7, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action, that:
“The claims are amended herein to ensure there is sufficient antecedent basis for the above terms.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument mostly persuasive and mostly agrees. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection presented in the previous office action towards amended claim 14 cites “wherein the performance parameter” is line 4, which requires an amendment to recite “wherein the at least one performance parameter.” See rejection below.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“In an effort to expedite prosecution, the independent claims are amended to recite “controlling, via a computing unit, the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data” or similar language. Independent claim 1, as amended now recites “controlling, via a computing unit, the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.” This limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The control of a production process by adjusting equipment operating conditions requires physical interaction with industrial equipment and cannot be accomplished through mental processes alone. Similarly, independent claims 36 and 37, as amended, recite “control the production by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.” These limitations likewise require physical control of industrial equipment that is beyond the capability of human mental activity.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument mostly unpersuasive and respectfully mostly disagrees. Independent claims 1, 36, and 37 are amended to include a modified version of cancelled claim 13, wherein a step of controlling a production process through an adjustment of equipment operating conditions, which is based on the object identifier with the appended process data has been is performed. The step of controlling through adjustment comprises the broadest reasonable interpretation of indicating by an alarm or warning, which falls within the scope of “insignificant extra-solution activity.” Specifically, this step falls under “insignificant post-solution activity;” e.g., see pg. 10, lines 31-35 of applicant’s disclosure which states “equipment operating conditions” refers to any characteristics or values that represent the state of the equipment, for example, any one or more of, setpoint, controller output, production sequence, calibrations tatus, any equipment related warning, etc.”
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“The claims recite a specific improvement to the technology of chemical product manufacturing. By controlling the production process based on the object identifier with appended process data, the claims provide a technical solution that enables real-time adjustment of equipment operating conditions in response to input material properties and process parameters. This represents a concrete improvement to the functioning of the industrial plant itself, not merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology of technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
The applicant has not provided a particular area of the disclosure for providing the improvement; however, the examiner has made an attempt to evaluate the specification to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. pg. 2, lines 14-20 disclose traceability may be improved based upon input material processed and identified with object identifier. The examiner notes that this appears to be a conclusory statement, wherein no improvement is identified. Pg. 11, lines 25-30 discloses traceability may be further improved by bundling the associated process specific data. This is also construed as a conclusory statement wherein bundling types of data together is not construed as an improvement. Pg. 14, lines 1-8 disclose Machine Learning model for making a determination of dominant effect on the chemical product, wherein the relevance of the process data can be improved. Utilizing relevant processing data in combination with a neural network is not construed as an improvement and is also a conclusory statement. Pg. 17, lines 5-10 discloses another conclusory statement disclosing that a snapshot of the production process attached to samples can improve quality control and can synergistically improve with the use of a machine learning model. This is construed as a conclusory statement, wherein appending information to other information and utilizing a ML model for calculation is not construed as an improvement. Pg. 20, lines 12-15 discloses a reduction in wastage by maintaining optimal production in one or more zones by dynamically adjusting an optimal mode of production. This is construed as a conclusory statement and is not indicative of an improvement. Pg. 45, lines 21-29 discloses a cite of fig. 6 and discusses a topographical structure. Once again, this is a conclusory statement and is not construed as providing an improvement. None of the recitations of an improvement in the applicant’s disclosure is indicative of providing any more than a conclusory statement, and none of the recitations from the disclosure are identified as an improvement.
Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
The examiner notes that the first criteria has not been met. However, the second criteria will be examined. None of traceability, a ML model in combination with an object identifier, a snapshot of a production process, granular control, and/or circular nodes of a graph-based database linked via connection lines are components of instant claims 1, 36, and 37. Therefore the second criteria has not been met.
Applicant argues on pg. 9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action towards claim 37, that:
“Regarding the Examiner's allegation that claim 37 is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of "A computer program, or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program" includes only a computer program, Applicant submits that claim 37, as amended, now recites "A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program." This amendment removes the alternative recitation of a computer program per se and clearly claims a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls within the statutory categories of patentable subject matter as a manufacture.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of a “computer program” directed towards claim 37 is withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pg. 10, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“It is submitted that Elfstrom does not teach or suggest “appending, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data, as recited by claim 1. Elfstrom’s electronic information storage element stores information indicative of a batch-specific and/or vessel-specific material property, vessel-specific current and/or historical environmental condition, and material-specific utilization parameters such as settings or instructions for a process tool. See [0040] of Elfstrom. This information relates to the material properties and environmental conditions experienced by the vessel, not process parameters or equipment operating conditions under which the input material is processed to an object identifier.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. Para. [0040] of Elfstrom discloses that the RFID tag having a passive RF transponder, an antenna, and a programmable memory for storing any desirable information. Elfstrom discloses that the information can be batch-specific and/or vessel-specific material property, a vessel-specific current and/or historical environmental condition. Each of vessel-specific material property and vessel-specific current and/or historical property could be construed as material properties and environmental conditions experienced by the vessel, but batch-specific process cannot. The batch-specific properties are clearly and explicitly disclosed following the cite which states “more specific examples of information that may be saved in the memory include, but are not limited to, information indicative of material composition, material density, material viscosity, material pressure, material temperature, material volume, material mass, batch identification, fill date, material expiration date, etc. None of these batch specific properties pertain to the material properties and environmental conditions experienced by the vessel.
Further, the vessel itself contains and controls a material for dispensation; e.g., see para. [0046]. The sensor/probe (43) is inserted through a rupturable membrane (23) and protrudes into the volume of the vessel (10). Elfstrom discloses that when dispensation is desired, if the vessel contains undesired or unexpected material, then material transfer may be prevented. In this regard, such electronic information storage device (25) may be used for information-based misconnect prevention and/or to inhibit further transfer of a material that has expired or has been degraded (e.g., by environmental exposure); examiner notes that a material that has undergone a process within the vessel itself, whether by degradation and/or expiration, which may also be construed as a part of the process data. Said another way, the vessel is one of the at least one equipment in the total processing of the material, wherein the fluid contained in the vessel is the at least one input material, wherein one of the many processes through the processing of the material includes the process it undergoes during spoiling, which is determined by an expiration date from a stamp or sensor reading indicating the fluid properties. This is juxtaposed with applicant’s own disclosure which states “the process data (126) may even include one or more time-stamps, for example time of entry and/or time of exit, from the mixing pot (104).
Applicant argues on pg. 11, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Claim 1, as amended, recites “controlling, via a computing unit, the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.” Elfstrom does not teach or suggest this. While Elfstrom discloses that an operating parameter of a process tool may be set or adjusted automatically responsive to information communicated from an electronic information storage device, this adjustment is based on material property information and environmental conditions stored on the vessel, not based on an object identifier with appended process data, as required by claim 1. In contrast, the claimed control involves using the object identifier with appended process data to adjust the equipment operating conditions, which enables a control approach where the relevant process data captured with the input material data can be used to control the production process. Elfstrom does not disclose this control based on the object identifier with appended process data.”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments persuasive and agrees insofar as Elfstrom is not relied upon in the previous office action as explicitly disclosing amended limitations. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Elfstrom.
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.
Claims 14 and 37 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the performance parameter" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the at least one performance parameter” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the program" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “a program” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-15, 20, 24, 31-34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-15, 20, 24, and 31-34 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A method for digitally tracking a chemical product manufactured at an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment; and, the chemical product being manufactured by processing, via the at least one equipment, at least one input material using a production process, the method comprises:
providing, via an interface, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material,
receiving, via the interface, process data from the at least one equipment; the process data being indicative of process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under,
append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data and
controlling, via a computing unit, the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering.
Claim 1 discloses providing, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; receiving, process data; the process data being indicative of process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
via an interface,
via the interface,
via a computing unit,
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
controlling, the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). In this instance, controlling the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions includes the broadest reasonable interpretation of issuing a warning/alarm, wherein issuing a warning/alarm falls within insignificant post-solution activity. Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
at an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment; and, the chemical product being manufactured by processing, via the at least one equipment, at least one input material using a production process,
from the at least one equipment;
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 14-15, 20, 24, and 31-34 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 36 is directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 36 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A system comprising at least one equipment for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant by processing at least one input material using a production process, the at least one equipment being operatively coupled to a computing unit, wherein the system is configured or adapted such that the computing unit is configured to:
provide, via an interface, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material,
receive, via the interface, process data from the at least one equipment; the process data being indicative of a process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under,
append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data, and
control the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering.
Claim 36 discloses provide, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; receive, process data; the process data being indicative of a process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 36 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 36 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 36 further recites:
operatively coupled to a computing unit, wherein the system is configured or adapted such that the computing unit is configured to:
via an interface
via the interface
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 36 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
control the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 36 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). In this instance, controlling the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions includes the broadest reasonable interpretation of issuing a warning/alarm, wherein issuing a warning/alarm falls within insignificant post-solution activity. Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
at least one equipment for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant by processing at least one input material using a production process, the at least one equipment being
from the at least one equipment
Analyzing this additional element of claim 36 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 36 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1:
Claim 37 is directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 37 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computing unit, operatively coupled to at least one equipment for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant by processing at least one input material using a production process, causes the computing unit to:
provide, via an interface, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material,
receive, via the interface, process data from the at least one equipment; the process data being indicative of a process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under,
append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data, and
control the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 37 discloses provide, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; receive, process data; the process data being indicative of a process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 37 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 37 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 37 further recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computing unit,… causes the computing unit to:
via an interface,
via the interface
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 37 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
control the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 37 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). In this instance, controlling the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions includes the broadest reasonable interpretation of issuing a warning/alarm, wherein issuing a warning/alarm falls within insignificant post-solution activity. Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
operatively coupled to at least one equipment for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant by processing at least one input material using a production process,
from the at least one equipment;
Analyzing this additional element of claim 37 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 37 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 14, 24, 31-32, 34, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elfstrom et al. (US 2015/0186196 A1), hereinafter Elfstrom.
Regarding claim 1, Elfstrom discloses A method for digitally tracking a chemical product manufactured at an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment; and, the chemical product being manufactured by processing, via the at least one equipment, at least one input material using a production process, the method comprises: (Elfstrom, e.g., see fig. 1 illustrating a perspective assembly view of material storage vessel having an electronic information storage element disposed in a cap thereof, the vessel having an associated probe connector with a connector head and a probe extending therefrom, specifically to vessel (10), dispensing assembly (15), electronic information storage element (24), probe connector (40), and information storage element (50); see also fig. 5 illustrating a material management system showing the direction of material transit along with the interconnection of various elements within a material end use process facility and among external facilities, specifically to container (201A-201Q), wherein the individual containers are illustrated in fig. 1 as vessel(s) (10), process tools (272A-272B); see also figs. 6-8 illustrating a logic diagram depicting various steps of first, second, and third material storage vessel management method, respectively; see also para. [0038] disclosing material storage vessels are described herein further include vessels containing physical adsorption media for sorptively retaining a gas, and for storage and subsequent dispensing of gas under desorption and dispensing conditions. In this respect, a sorbent medium may include a solid, solvent, liquid, semi-solid, or other material having capability as a storage medium; see also para. [0072] disclosing from the staging area (260), material storage vessels may be transported to a production process or fabrication area (270)).
providing, via an interface, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material, (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection applied above; see fig. 5 illustrating network (232), and data communication elements (245), (255), (265), (275), and (285); see also para. [0065] disclosing within the production facility (230), a network (232) and multiple data communication elements (245), (255), (265), (275), (285) permit communication with one another and to various network devices such as a central controller (236), a monitoring element (235), data storage/retrieval element (234), an optional remote access device (206), and a user interface (238), each employing hardware and software; examiner notes network (232) and its corresponding communication elements are construed as an interface; see also fig. 6 illustrating step (402) disclosing fill vessel having associated (electronic) information storage device with material, and step (404) disclosing store, in information storage device, information indicative of: (a) supplier – and/or customer-specific identifiers; (B) a batch-specific material property, (C) a vessel-specific material property, (D) A vessel-specific current environmental condition and/or (F) a material-specific utilization parameter; see also paras. [0094] disclosing the system (200) enables a variety of material management methods. For example, referring to fig. 5, a material management method (400) is directed generally to the storage of information in an electronic information storage device, and utilization of stored information to set or adjust an operating parameter of a process tool. Starting at the top of fig. 6, a first method step (402) includes filling a vessel with material having an associated electronic information storage device. A second method step (404) includes storing, and an electronic information storage device associated with the vessel, information indicative of any of (a) a batch-specific material property; construed by the examiner as an input material data, (b) a vessel-specific material property, (c) a vessel-specific current and environmental condition, (d) a vessel-specific historical and environmental condition, and (e) a material-specific utilization parameter (or process tool operating parameter). The steps (402), (404) may be performed with a filling system (100) as described hereinabove; see also paras. [0040]-[0041] disclosing the cap (20) includes an electronic information storage element (25). One example of such an element is an RFID tag having a passive RF transponder, an antenna, and a programmable memory; examiner notes that an RFID is construed as an object identifier. The stored information may, for example, be indicative of any of: a batch-specific and/or vessel-specific material property, a vessel-specific current and/or historical environmental condition, and material-specific utilization parameters such as setting or instructions for a process tool. More specific examples of information that may be saved in the memory include, but are not limited to, information indicative of material composition, material density, material viscosity, material pressure, material temperature, material volume, material mass, batch identification, manufacturer identification, fill date, material expiration date, a supplier-specific identifier, a customer-specific identifier, certificates of analysis (e.g., embodying batch-specific or vessel-specific material property information), an identifier of a certificate of analysis or similar record, and other similarly useful information; construed by the examiner as a property of the input material).
receiving, via the interface, process data from the at least one equipment; the process data being indicative of process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under, (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 6, specifically to step (406) disclosing ship vessel to fluid process end use facility, step (408) disclosing analyze material sample, step (410) disclosing provide material and/or process information, step (412) disclosing receive vessel at end use facility, step (414) disclosing move vessel within end use facility, step (415) monitor environmental condition, step (418) disclosing communicate information to a process tool control device and record information; see also paras. [0095]-[0096] disclosing a material sample representative of the contents of a material storage vessel may be analyzed in a third step (408). Such analysis may be performed during or after a shipment of a material-containing storage vessel to a material process end use facility in step (406). Following material analysis, the analytic results may be made available to a material storage vessel in step (410). Such information may be provided automatically or in response to a network interrogation request in step (409). The information may be matched up with appropriate material storage vessels during a shipment step (406), upon receipt of a vessel at an end use facility in step (412), or as part of a separate communication step (418) wherein information from a material storage vessel and/or data repository is communicated to a process tool control device. The communication of information from an electronic information storage device (associated with a material storage vessel) to a process tool control device in step (418) permits an operating parameter of a process tool to be set or adjusted automatically in step (420). Thereafter, a process is performed and/or a product article is fabricated with the process tool in step (422). Such a product article need not embody a finished consumer good; rather, it may include any suitable processed material, and embody a precursor material for a subsequent process step. Following the product article is analyzed in step (422), an attribute of the product article is analyzed in step (424). Such analysis may include any of conventional various performance tests or quality assurance/quality control tests. Responsive to the analysis step (424), an operating parameter of the process tool may be further adjusted in step (420)).
Elfstrom, in the current embodiment, is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data and
controlling, via a computing unit, the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data.
However, Elfstrom in an alternative embodiment discloses append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data and (Elfstrom, e.g., see fig. 8 illustrating step (482) disclosing fabricate product employing material received from material storage vessel, and step (483) disclosing associatively store the material/vessel/environmental condition information with product information indicative of (A) product identification; (B) product batch information; and/or (C) product fabrication date or time; see also para. [0100] disclosing a product employing a material received from the material storage vessel is fabricated in step (482). Thereafter, information specific to the material/and or vessel, optionally including environmental condition information, is associatively stored (e.g., in a searchable database) with product information indicative of any of (a) product unique identification; examiner notes that a unique identification is explicitly disclosed in para. [0041] as a type of RFID tag, which is construed above as an object identifier; (b) product batch information; and/or (c) product fabrication date/time. Such storage correlates a fabricated product with materials used in its manufacture).
controlling, via a computing unit, the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also para. [0046] disclosing dispensation of material from the vessel (10) is preferably initiated, controlled or otherwise regulated via an external controller; construed as a computing unit, (not shown utilizing information retrieved from a first electronic information storage device (25). for example, a control unit may compare information received from the first electronic information storage device (25) to information about a process to be performed (e.g., identify and quantity of material required), and initiate material transfer accordingly. If the vessel (10) contains an undesired or expected material, then material transfer may be prevented. Conversely, if the vessel (10) contains a material required by the process, then flow may be initiated, with the flow profile governable using information received from the first electronic information storage device (25); examiner notes that starting and/or stopping a governable flow is construed as controlling the production by process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Elfstrom with an alternative embodiment for at least the reasons that the ability to correlate device performance to source materials facilitates process optimization and facilitates rapid recall of products or product batches later determined to be defective, all without requiring universal product assurance testing, as taught by Elfstrom; e.g., see para. [0100].
Regarding claim 2, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one input material for the processing via the at least one equipment is divided into at least two packages (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also fig. 4 illustrating separate packages of input materials (10A), (10B), and (10C); see also para. [0064] disclosing fig. 4 depicts a material storage vessel monitoring system (120) for monitoring one or more vessels (10A)-(10C). Each vessel may include a first electronic information storage element (25A)-(25C) and a second electronic information storage element and/or sensors (50A)-(50C)).
wherein a size of a package is fixed or is determined based on an input material weight or amount, for which constant process parameters or equipment operation parameters can be provided by the at least one equipment. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied above and to claim 1, specifically to fig. 4 illustrating a same/fixed packaging size; see also para. [0046] disclosing a control unit may compare information received from the first electronic information storage device (25) to information about a process to be performed (e.g., identity and quantity of material required), and initiate material transfer accordingly. If the vessel (10) contains a material required by the process, then flow may be initiated, with the flow profile governable; wherein a governable flow profile is construed as a considerably constant parameter; using information received from the first electronic information storage device).
Regarding claim 3, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the at least two packages is managed by corresponding data objects, each of which at least including an object identifier. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically to figs. 1 and 3 illustrating electronic information storage element/RFID (25) and para. [0040], wherein para. [0040] further discloses such memory is preferably dynamically updateable to permit information to be written thereto when deployed in use as applied to a material storage vessel. The stored information may, for example, be indicative of any of: a batch-specific and/or vessel-specific material property, a vessel-specific current and/or historical environmental condition, and material-specific utilization parameters such as settings or instructions for a process tool; construed as being “managed”).
Regarding claim 6, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the process data comprise
at least one numerical value and/or binary value indicative of the process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions measured during the production process. (Elfstrom, e.g., see para. [0073] disclosing a local control element (276A), (276B) may be provided for each process tool (272A), (272B), with each local control element (276A), (276B) preferably being in communication with a central controller (236), a monitoring element (235), data storage/retrieval element (234), an optional remote access device (206), and a user interface (238), all via a data communication station. Each process tool control element (272A), (272B) is preferably adapted to access and/or modify any of the stored batch-specific current and/or historical environmental condition, and material-specific utilization parameters as input variables to examine the effect of said variables on any of process performance, tool performance, product performance, and product yield; construed as the process data comprising equipment operating conditions measuring during the production process).
Regarding claim 7, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the equipment operating conditions are any characteristics or values that represent a state of the at least one equipment, wherein the state of the characteristics or values are, any one or more of setpoint, controller output, production sequence, calibrations tatus, an equipment related warning, vibration measurement, speed, temperature, fouling value, or maintenance date. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0057] disclosing pressure signals may be used to sense leaking or empty containers (e.g., characterized by declining or low pressure), or to sense dangerous overpressure conditions. Output signals from pressure sensors may be compared to preset or user-defined thresholds, with high- or low-pressure state signals preferably being stored in a memory of an electronic information storage element; see also para. [0071] disclosing information indicative of the present and/or historical environmental conditions in the receiving area may be written to at least one electronic information storage element of each vessel either on a substantially continuous basis, or as the vessel exits the staging area (260). If not previously stored in an electronic information storage element associated with a material storage vessel 9e.g., upon filling at the supplier facility (210) or at any other point in the chain of supply of the vessel), process tool operating parameters, settings, or operating instructions, or other information affecting process tool material utilization, may be stored to an electronic information storage element of a material storage vessel in the staging area (260); see also para. [0073] disclosing each process tool control element (272A), (272B) is preferably adapted to access and/or modify any of the stored batch-specific and/or vessel-specific material property, vessel-specific current and/or historical environmental condition, and material-specific utilization parameters as input variables to examine the effect of said variables on any of process performance, tool performance, product performance, and product yield).
Regarding claim 9, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the input material data comprise lab sample or test data related to the at least one input material. (Elfstrom, e.g., see the rejection of claim 1, specifically to para. [0040] disclosing one example of a material storage and dispensing assembly is illustrated in fig. 1. As illustrated, the cap (20) includes an electronic information storage element (25). On example of such an element is an RFID tag having a passive RF transponder, an antenna, and a programmable memory. The stored information may, for example, be indicative of any of: a batch-specific and/or vessel-specific material property, a vessel-specific current and/or historical environmental condition and material-specific utilization parameters such as settings or instructions for a process tool; see also para. [0083] disclosing information about any of material characteristics, vessel information, current and historical environment conditions, and material usage information is stored on an electronic information storage element associated with a material storage vessel, and is shared with external software and data systems. For a process tool (272A) comprising a Track Process Tool, such display may include a representation of which material is connected to a specific dispense nozzle, and provide detailed information is about each material. Such information about any of material characteristics, vessel information, current and historical environment conditions; examiner notes that historical environment conditions is construed as test data related to the input material, and material usage may be used by the process tool (272A) and/or any associated or integrated control element (278A), (236) or monitoring element (235) to permit flexible and comprehensive tool and production reporting).
Regarding claim 14, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the object identifier with the appended process data is usable for correlating or mapping the input material data and/or specific process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions to at least one performance parameter of the chemical product, wherein the performance parameter is indicative of the one or more properties of the chemical product. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also fig. 3 and para. [0063] disclosing fig. 3 depicts a filling system (100) for material storage vessels such as the vessel (10). The vessel (10) may include a first electronic information storage element (25), and a second electronic information storage element (50), preferably including any one or more sensors as described hereinabove. During or after the filling step, a programming interface (104) (e.g., RFID-based) may be used to write information to an electronic information storage element (25) and/or (50). Such information may be limited to a unique identifier, such as coded in Electronic Product Code format, or may include any of the various types of information described hereinabove, such as material type, material level, material batch identity, batch-specific or container-specific material properties, material-specific utilization parameters for process tools, process tool operating instructions, and so on; see also para. [0069] disclosing a certificate of analysis, a unique identifier permitting access toa certificate of analysis, results of an acceptance or acceptability determination, and the like may be communicated to a process tool control element, preferably upon entry of a vessel to a material end use facility. Furthermore, information indicative of a chemical usage template or other process tool operational instruction may be stored to, or enabled to be accessed from, an information storage device upon attainment of a specific event, such as acceptance of the vessel or material by an operator of a material end use facility).
Regarding claim 24, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one equipment comprises a plurality of zones, wherein during the production process, the at least one input material progresses from a first equipment zone to at least a second equipment zone. (Elfstrom, e.g., see fig. 5 illustrating a plurality of zones to include a receiving zone (249), a cold storage zone (250), a pre-fab chem staging zone (260), a process/fab zone (270), and a shipping/waste management zone (280), wherein all of these zones are within end use facility (230), wherein the container (201n) proceeds from (201E) to (201F) to (201G) to (201H), etc.; see also paras. [0068]-[0075] disclosing the progression of the material storage vessels through each zone; examiner notes that zones (240), (250), (260), and (270) are construed as a first equipment zone, and zone (280) is construed as the second equipment zone).
Regarding claim 31, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 24, wherein a part of the at least one input material is removed prior to entering the at least second equipment zone. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 24; see also paras. [0072]-[0075] disclosing each process tool (272A), (272B) has an associated material (e.g., chemical) enclosure or drawer (273A), (273B) for housing material storage vessels (e.g., vessels (201L), (201M)) coupled in dispensing relationship to the process tool (272A), (272B). Each drawer (273A), (273B) preferably contains multiple material storage vessels to permit significant periods of uninterrupted operation of the process tools (272A), (272B), and an electronic information storage element (e.g., a short-range RFID tag) of each material storage vessel is preferably in sensor communication with an associated local control element (278A), (278B) via appropriate communication hardware. Mass, level, or volume sensing of material contained within material storage vessels is desirably performed at any point in which material may be consumed or discharged, to provide indication of remaining material, and/or material consumption is tracked. Following depletion of material from a material storage vessel (e.g., such as vessel (201N)) in the fabrication area (270), signals indicative of an empty or depleted condition are preferably recorded to the information storage element associated with each material storage vessel (e.g., to prevent subsequent misconnect of an empty vessel to a process tool), and depleted vessels (e.g., vessels (201O), (201P)) are transported to a shipping or waste management area (280)).
Regarding claim 32, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 31, wherein the part of the at least one input material is provided at a third equipment zone. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claims 31 and 24, and 1; see also fig. 5 illustrating zone (290) which is disclosed as “disposal/recycling” and zone (219) disclosed as a “supplier,” wherein zones (290) and (219) are construed as a third equipment zone; see also para. [0075] disclosing depleted vessels may be returned to the supplier for refilling or recycling, or provided to a waste services provider for waste processing; examiner notes a depleted tank refilled necessarily provides input material).
Regarding claim 34, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein any or each of the object identifiers includes a unique identifier. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [098] disclosing the analytical information may be stored in an electronic information storage device associated with the appropriate vessel communicated to a networked data repository remote from the vessel 9e.g., and correlated to the vessel via a unique identifier; e.g., as an Electronic Product Code) in step (444); see also para. [0100]).
Regarding claim 36, Claim 36 discloses A system comprising at least one equipment for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant by processing at least one input material using a production process, the at least one equipment being operatively coupled to a computing unit, wherein the system is configured or adapted such that the computing unit is configured to: provide, via an interface, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material, receive, via the interface, process data from the at least one equipment; the process data being indicative of a process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under, append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data, and control the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Elfstrom for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1. Claim 36 is different than claim 1 in the claim recitation disclosing: the at least one equipment being operatively coupled to a computing unit, wherein the system is configured or adapted such that the computing unit is configured to: wherein Elfstrom discloses (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 5 illustrating control (236); see also para. [0060] disclosing such comparisons may be performed externally by periodically or on demand communicating information indicative of sensor signals to a processor of an industrial controller or computer (e.g., the control element (236) illustrated in fig. 5); see also para. [0065] disclosing within the production facility (230), a network (232) and multiple data communication elements (245), (255), (265), (275), (285) permit communication with one another and to various network devices such as a central controller (236), a monitoring element (235), data storage/retrieval element (234), an optional remote access device (206), and a user interface (238)).
Regarding claim 37, Claim 37 discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computing unit, operatively coupled to at least one equipment for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant by processing at least one input material using a production process, causes the computing unit to: provide, via an interface, an object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more property of the at least one input material, receive, via the interface, process data from the at least one equipment; the process data being indicative of a process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the at least one input material is processed under, append, to the object identifier, at least a part of the process data, and control the production process by adjusting the equipment operating conditions based on the object identifier with the appended process data., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Elfstrom for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1. Claim 37 is different than claim 1 in the claim recitation disclosing: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computing unit, wherein Elfstrom discloses (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 5 illustrating control (236) and data storage/retrieval (234); see also para. [0060] disclosing such comparisons may be performed externally by periodically or on demand communicating information indicative of sensor signals to a processor of an industrial controller or computer (e.g., the control element (236) illustrated in fig. 5); see also para. [0065] disclosing within the production facility (230), a network (232) and multiple data communication elements (245), (255), (265), (275), (285) permit communication with one another and to various network devices such as a central controller (236), a monitoring element (235), data storage/retrieval element (234), an optional remote access device (206), and a user interface (238); see also para. [0069] disclosing various user-defined rules for acceptance and movement of materials may be applied to the vessels and materials disposed therein, typically relating to certificate of analysis results to be transmitted from an analytical services provided to the end user facility. Information indicative of a chemical usage template or other process tool operational instructions may be stored to, or enabled to be accessed from, an information storage device upon attainment of a specific event).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elfstrom in view of Zimmerman (US 2005/0246160 A1), hereinafter Zimmerman.
Regarding claim 4, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via the at least one equipment. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically with regard to fig. 5 illustrating process equipment; see also para. [0062] disclosing signal sampling rate may be dynamically varied in response to triggers or threshold events. For example, if pressure or strain is initially sampled at a rate of twice per hour, a reading substantially higher or lower than a cumulative average reading or other threshold value may trigger more frequency signal sampling or data transfer to a memory of an electronic information storage device or data repository).
Elfstrom is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: a data object.
However, Zimmermann further discloses a data object. (Zimmermann, e.g., see para. [0051] disclosing examples of applications (200) on data processing equipment include software systems for design, for product data management, product engineering management, for product simulation using computation models, e.g., for the behavior of the product under mechanical loads, for manufacturing planning, for resource planning, for programming machine tools, for performing and analyzing measurements for quality assurance and for workflow management; see also para. [0063] disclosing an application (200) is able to trigger generation and permanent (persistent) storage of a data object type (500) in central database (100) via an information routing interface (250) and central service routine (98)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Elfstrom’s method with Zimmermann’s data object for at least the reasons that data objects and relations form the building blocks for generating models for the particular phase for manufacturing, as taught by Zimmermann; e.g., see para. [0061].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elfstrom in view of Renner (US 2008/0052040 A1), hereinafter Renner.
Regarding claim 8, Elfstrom is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, wherein the process data comprise time-series data of one or more of the process parameters and/or the equipment operating conditions.
However, Renner further discloses: wherein the process data comprise time-series data of one or more of the process parameters and/or the equipment operating conditions. (Renner, e.g., see para. [0018] disclosing it is possible in principle to produce any time series (test blocks) which respectively ascertain the performance in relation to time of the technical process being monitored, within any time interval, for example the performance of the technical process or of the measurement parameters; construed as process parameters; in the second range or also in the interval of a month).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Elfstrom’s method with Renner’s process data comprise time-series data of one or more of the process parameters and/or the equipment operating conditions for at least the reasons that time series process parameter data distinguishes process parameters along a trend so as to gather data for producing historical trends and identifying flaws.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elfstrom in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0323189 A1), hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 15, Elfstrom is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, wherein a machine learning (“ML”) model is trained using training data that include data from the object identifier with the appended process data, said training being done via the computing unit.
However, Chang further discloses wherein a machine learning (“ML”) model is trained using training data that include data from the object identifier with the appended process data, said training being done via the computing unit. (Chang, e.g., see para. [0028] disclosing the machine learning may be achieved with a trained model such as the machine learning model (105). The machine learning model may be pre-trained on exemplary data from the region and active RFID system).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Elfstrom’s method with Chang’s machine learning (“ML”) model is trained using training data that include data from the object identifier with the appended process data, said training being done via the computing unit for at least the reasons that a machine learning model may be continuously refined from its original training as it experiences live data, as taught by Chang; e.g., see para. [0029].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elfstrom in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0323189 A1), hereinafter Chang, in further view of Honda et al. (US 2018/0356807 A1), hereinafter Honda.
Regarding claim 20, Elfstrom is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing The method of claim 15, wherein the training data for training the ML model also comprise historical and/or current laboratory test data, or data from the past and/or recent samples, wherein the historical and/or current laboratory test data is indicative of the at least one performance parameters of the chemical product.
However, Honda further discloses wherein the training data for training the ML model also comprise historical and/or current laboratory test data, or data from the past and/or recent samples, wherein the historical and/or current laboratory test data is indicative of the at least one performance parameters of the chemical product. (Honda, e.g., see rejection as applied to claims 15 and 1 disclosing a chemical product; see also para. [0039] disclosing the relationships can be complex and difficult to correlate, e.g., key performance indicators (KPIs) of the process steps, such as the critical dimensions of lithographic and etch steps (202), the dielectric film thickness (204), and film resistivity (206); parametrics, such as channel length and width (212), transistor and diode thresholds (214), and resistance (216); and product performance, such as maximum frequency (222), and maximum current (224). We can use predictive analytics to quantify those relationships, and then leverage the relationships to predict and improve product performance; see also fig. 4 and para. [0053] disclosing predictive models are constructed as ML models and run using a training set of historical data relevant to the target and sampled from actual production runs).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Elfstrom in view of Chang’s method with Honda’s wherein the training data for training the ML model also comprise historical and/or current laboratory test data, or data from the past and/or recent samples, wherein the historical and/or current laboratory test data is indicative of the at least one performance parameters of the chemical product for at least the reasons that machine learning algorithms, along with parallel processing capabilities, allow for much larger datasets to be processed, without the need to physically model the data, as taught by Honda; e.g., see para. [0034].
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elfstrom in view of Wang et al. (CN 106154989 B), hereinafter Wang, in further view of Sasaki et al. (US 2020/0174459 A1), hereinafter Sasaki.
Regarding claim 33, Elfstrom discloses: The method of claim 24, wherein the object identifier is provided at the first equipment zone, and (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied to claims 24 and 1; see also fig. 5 illustrating zone 1, cited above as zone (240), (250), (260), and (270) of facility (230), wherein zone 1 provides for a RFID Comm. (241), (251), (261), and (271); construed as the object identifier above).
at least a part of the process data from the at least second equipment zone is appended to said object identifier before entry at the at least second equipment zone, (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection applied above; see also fig. 5 denoting container (201N) transitioning to shipping/waste management (280) as (201O); see also para. [0075] disclosing following depletion of material from a material storage vessel (e.g., such as vessel (201N)) in the fabrication area (270), signals indicative of an empty or depleted condition are preferably recorded to the information storage element associated with each material storage vessel (e.g., to prevent subsequent misconnect of an empty vessel to a process tool), and depleted vessels (e.g., vessels (201O), (201P)) are transported to a shipping or waste management (material egress) area (280)).
the at least second equipment zone being such that a quantity of material entering at the at least second equipment zone is the same as the quantity of the material in a zone where the material was processed prior to the entry at the at least second equipment zone, (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 5 illustrating a circular flow diagram, wherein the third zone includes a disposal/recycling (290) which recycles back to a Supplier; e.g., see para. [0075] disclosing depleted vessels may be returned to the supplier for refilling or recycling; wherein Supplier (210) then precedes movement to a distribution/warehouse (220) and flows into factor (230), which includes first zone (240), (250), (260), and (270); examiner notes the depleted vessel of zero material is the same depleted vessel of zero material as from a supplier at (210); e.g., see paras. [0066]-[0068] disclosing starting at upper left in fig. 5, material is supplied to vessels (e.g., vessels (201A), (201B) vi a filling station (213) disposed in the supplier facility (210). From the supplier facility (210), material storage vessels (e.g., vessels (201C), (201D) may be transported to a distribution or warehouse facility (220). From the distribution facility (220), material storage vessels are transported to the material end use facility (230), and are typically received in a receiving area (240)).
wherein the zone is the first equipment zone or an intermediate equipment zone after the first equipment zone and the at least second equipment zone. (Elfstrom, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 5 illustrating distribution/warehouse (220); construed as an intermediate zone after the first equipment zone and the second equipment zone; e.g., (240), (250), (260), and (270)).
Elfstrom is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: an object identifier after entry; and
between the first equipment zone and the at least second equipment zone.
However, Wang further discloses: an object identifier after entry; and (Wang, e.g., see pg. 8, line 44 – pg. 9, line 3 disclosing collecting production equipment operation information, the production equipment operation information, product part information, raw material information, in production technology data information and operator information step specifically comprises the following steps: when the production line and production device begins to work, provided the production process data and the production process, the production equipment operation state and operation behaviour monitoring and real-time collected equipment operation state information, the production equipment operation information and product production process data; entering the production line of the product and production raw material identifying code after scanning recorded product part information, the production of each production station operator identity and information for authentication; examiner notes the production material is provided at an assembly line and provided a scanned recording of production values).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Elfstrom’s method with Wang’s object identifier after entry for at least the reasons that consistently updating product and process information automatically updates process values for automatic flow of materials through an industrial site.
Elfstrom in view of Wang is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: between the first equipment zone and the at least second equipment zone.
Elfstrom in view of Wang is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: between the first equipment zone and the at least second equipment zone.
However, Sasaki further discloses: between the first equipment zone and the at least second equipment zone. (Sasaki, e.g., see fig. 1 illustrating respective zones; see also para. [0028] disclosing the respective AGVs (102) are, as described above, used for transport of a workpiece body between the zones A and D, transport of a workpiece body between the zones D and B, transport of a part C or a tray (101) between zones A and B, transport of a workpiece body between zones B and C, and transport of a workpiece body between the zones C and D; examiner notes any of zones A, B, C, and/or D are construed as a first and at least second equipment zone).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Elfstrom in view of Wang’s method with Sasaki’s between the first equipment zone and the at least second equipment zone for at least the reasons that tracking processes between zones provides for calculating required times for the individual setups and processes, as taught by Sasaki; e.g., see para. [0029].
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 8,055,787 B2 to victor et al. relates to a system and method for managing industrial process control data streams over network links.
US 8,014,974 B2 to Doddek et al. relates to a system and method for analyzing and reporting machine operating parameters.
US 7,206,646 B2 to Nixon et al. relates to a method and apparatus for performing a function in a plant using process performance monitoring with process equipment monitoring and control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights