DETAILED ACTION
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1 and similarly 11 recite(s) “wherein each of the management sub-platforms performs production calculation based on first operation data to generate first calculation result data,”
“wherein the first operation data is related data corresponding to a operation of one of production links including grinding, emulsification, sterilization, filling, and packaging: wherein the each of the management sub-platforms has a corresponding first calculation model, and to generate the first calculation result data, the each of the management sub-platforms further: respectively, wherein the first calculation model includes a grinding error calculation sub-model, an emulsification error calculation sub-model, a sterilization error calculation sub-model, a filling error calculation sub-model, and a packaging error calculation sub-model, and the first calculation model is a machine learning model; generates a first grinding error of a grinding link based on the grinding error calculation sub-model; generates a first emulsification error of an emulsification link based on the emulsification error calculation sub- model; generates a first sterilization error of a sterilization link based on the sterilization error calculation model; generates a first filling error of a filling link based on the filling error calculation sub-model; generates a first packaging error of a packaging link based on the packaging error calculation sub-model; and takes the first grinding error, the first emulsification error, the first sterilization error, the first filling error, and the first packaging error as the first calculation result data;”, “and the general platform database performs the production calculation based on second operation data to generate second calculation result data, and generates adjustment parameters of production devices according to the second calculation result data and the first calculation result data”, and “wherein the second operation data is related data during an operation of all production links, the all production links including the grinding link, the emulsification link, the sterilization link, the filling link, and the packaging link” which are mathematical calculations and/or mental processes/determinations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “and send the first calculation result data to the general platform database;” and “inputs the first operation data into sub-models of the corresponding first calculation model”, are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “An intelligent manufacturing Industrial Internet of Things based on a platform network in a post-sub type, comprising: a management platform, including a plurality of management sub-platforms and a general platform database” and similarly in claim 11 “a control method of an intelligent manufacturing Industrial Internet of Things based on a platform network in a post-sub type, wherein the intelligent manufacturing Industrial Internet of Things comprises a service platform, a management platform, and a sensor network platform interacting in sequence, and the management platform includes a plurality of management sub-platforms and a general platform database,” and “the production devices include a grinding device used in a grinding process, an emulsification device used in a emulsification process, a sterilization device used in a sterilization process, a filling device used in a filling process, and a packaging device used in the packaging link” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “and send the first calculation result data to the general platform database;” and “inputs the first operation data into sub-models of the corresponding first calculation model”, are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(g) and/or well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner per MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)(i and/or iv) as well as the prior art of record. The elements of “An intelligent manufacturing Industrial Internet of Things based on a platform network in a post-sub type, comprising: a management platform, including a plurality of management sub-platforms and a general platform database” and similarly in claim 11 “a control method of an intelligent manufacturing Industrial Internet of Things based on a platform network in a post-sub type, wherein the intelligent manufacturing Industrial Internet of Things comprises a service platform, a management platform, and a sensor network platform interacting in sequence, and the management platform includes a plurality of management sub-platforms and a general platform database,” and “the production devices include a grinding device used in a grinding process, an emulsification device used in a emulsification process, a sterilization device used in a sterilization process, a filling device used in a filling process, and a packaging device used in the packaging link” are considered to be are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well as the prior art of record.
In claim 2 and similarly 12, “classify the operation data according to a production line where the production devices are located to form classified data packets;” is considered to be similar to the abstract ideas cited above.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein the intelligent manufacturing Industrial Internet of Things further includes a service platform and a sensor network platform, the service platform, the management platform, and the sensor network platform interact in sequence; the sensor network platform includes a general database of the sensor network platform and a plurality of sensor network sub-platforms of the sensor network platform,” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are considered to be are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well as the prior art of record. The elements of “packet the operation data according to a production line where the production devices are located to form classified data packets;”, “the general database of the sensor network platform is configured to receive operation data of all production devices in an object platform”, “each of the plurality of sensor network sub-platforms is configured to receive the classified data packets in different types from the general database of the sensor network platform; the general platform database of the management platform is configured to interact with the sensor network sub-platforms through different ports and receive the classified data packets as the second operation data; each of the plurality of management sub-platforms of the management platform is configured to receive a corresponding classified data packet from the general platform database as the first operation data; the general platform database sends the adjustment parameters to corresponding production devices through the sensor network sub-platforms to adjust the production devices; and the service platform sends the classified data packets to the user platform and displays the classified data packets to the user platform in a classified manner” and “and the user platform generates control information and sends the control information to the service platform, the service platform then transmits the control information to the management platform, and the management platform calculates the control information and sends a calculated result to the object platform through the sensor network platform, to realize control of a corresponding object” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(g) and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner per MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)(i and/or iv) as well as the prior art of record.
In claim 3 and similarly 13, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a plurality of service sub-platforms, each of which is configured to receive a corresponding classified data packet and send the corresponding classified data packet to the user platform” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(g) and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner per MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)(i and/or iv) as well as the prior art of record.
In claim 4 and similarly 14, “as the first calculation result data; and the first calculation model simulates a production process of the production line corresponding to the classified data packet according to the classified data packet and generates evaluation data of output products in the production line as the first calculation result data” are considered to be similar to the abstract ideas cited above. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein each of the management sub-platforms are configured with a first calculation model corresponding to each classified data packet; each of the management sub-platforms inputs received operation data in the corresponding classified data packet into the first calculation model, and receives output data output by the first calculation model” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(g) and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner per MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)(i and/or iv) as well as the prior art of record.
In claim 5 and similarly 15, “the general platform database sorts all the classified data packets according to the queue data to form a production sequence,” and “the second calculation model simulates production processes for all classified data packets that have been received, and generates evaluation data of products as second calculation result data corresponding to the classified data packet” are considered to be similar to the abstract ideas cited above. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein the general platform database is configured with a second calculation model corresponding to all production lines in the object platform and production processes corresponding to all production lines in the object platform are used as queue data;” and “inputs the classified data packets into the second calculation model in sequence from the front of the production sequence; and each time receiving a classified data packet” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(g) and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner per MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)(i and/or iv) as well as the prior art of record.
Claims 6, 8-10 and 16, 18-21 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
In claim 22, “wherein the general database of the sensor network platform receives the operation data of the grinding device, the emulsification device, the sterilization device, the filling device, and the packaging device in the object platform.” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(g) and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner per MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)(i and/or iv) as well as the prior art of record.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-22 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claims 1 and 11, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, Cella (US 20200348662 A1), Johnson(US 8676956 B1), in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “wherein the first calculation model includes a grinding error calculation sub-model, an emulsification error calculation sub-model, a sterilization error calculation sub-model, a filling error calculation sub-model, and a packaging error calculation sub-model”, and “ generating a first grinding error of a grinding link based on the grinding error calculation sub-model; generating a first emulsification error of an emulsification link based on the emulsification error calculation sub-model; generating a first sterilization error of a sterilization link based on the sterilization error operator model; generating a first filling error of a filling link based on the filling error calculation sub-model; generating a first packaging error of a packaging link based on the packaging error operator sub-model; and taking the first grinding error, the first emulsification error, the first sterilization error, the first filling error, and the first packaging error as the first calculation result data” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10366348 B2 Algorithm And Method For Detecting Error Data Of Machine Based On Machine-learning Technique; US 20170149634 A1 SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR APPLYING AGGREGATED CABLE TEST RESULT DATA.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights