DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 07/06/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. claims 1-8 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with reference to the rejection under 35 USC 101; the rejection under 35 USC 103 and 112(b) has been withdrawn. Regarding Applicant’s assertions that: “As clearly shown in above limitations, the amended independent claims are directed to a specific technological process; and “These features are technical operations involving a specific way to calculate. They cannot practically be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper, and do not fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Accordingly, the amended independent claims are not directed to any of the three enumerated abstract-idea groupings (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) as provided in MPEP § 2106.04(a)”, and that “Even if the amended independent claims were to be characterized as a judicial exception, each of the claims as a whole integrates that concept into a concrete technological implementation that improves accuracy of calculations of the predictive value of the state quantity, which enables appropriate control of the flue gas desulfurization plant. The combination of above limitations collectively provides a technological improvement in plant management technology. This improvement enables timely reflecting the calculation results using the first to third functions in controlling the flue gas desulfurization plant, and provides a technological solution to a technological problem that large prediction error occurred in a physical model of a conventional plant system.” Step 2B “Even if the amended independent claims were considered to recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, the claims recite additional elements that, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than that exception. For example, calculating the predictive value of the state quantity and outputting the same to control the flue gas desulfurization plant is not well-understood, routine, or conventional“, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims are clearly directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts) and do not recite anything that sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as currently presented, nor integrate the recited abstract into a practical application, as asserted by the applicant. Furthermore, the claims do not in any way provide any improvement to a technological field, as asserted by the Applicant. In fact, there absolutely no way to improve the functionality of the general processor by performing the steps set forth by the claims. Even assuming that that claim recites some sort of improvement, said improvement would only apply to Applicants’ method and not the computer in general, i.e., when other computer applications are executed, they do not benefit from the same improvement that Applicants intended to have produced. Furthermore, the claims fail to recite anything that goes beyond the recited judicial exception, and that to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965; and the step of output the calculation result could clearly amount to post-solution activities and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract. Therefore, the claims are clearly abstract, as currently constructed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a state quantity prediction device (claim 1) and method (claim 8) for predicting, …, a state quantity of the equipment, comprising: The step of: “in a case that a differential predictive value of the state quantity is expressed as a first function including a second function indicating unknown dynamic characteristics and a third function whose variables are dynamic characteristics of the state quantity with respect to the input parameter and a difference value between the past predictive value and a predictive value of the physical model, inputting the input parameter and the past predictive value of the state quantity into a neural network comprising an input, intermediate, and output layers and expressing the second function and a nonlinear component of the third function, and causing the neural network to output a first differential predictive value”; “calculating a second predictive value by inputting the input parameter and the past predictive value to a linear form of the physical model and a linear component of the third function ”; and “calculating a predictive value of the state quantity by integrating a differential predictive value calculated based on the first differential predictive value and the second differential predictive value”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a storage”, “a central processing unit (CPU)”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0021]-[0022], and fig.1) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; and the step of: “outputting the calculated predictive value of the state quantity to control a flue gas desulfurization plant as the equipment” could amount to WURCC post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a storage”, “a central processing unit (CPU)”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0021]-[0022], and fig.1) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; and the step of: “outputting the calculated predictive value of the state quantity to control a flue gas desulfurization plant as the equipment” could amount to WURCC post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-7 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations (claim 2), “wherein the neural network is learned together with a linear coefficient of the linear component and a physical parameter regarding the flue gas desulfurization plant included in the physical model” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process). (claim 3); “wherein the physical parameter is regularized if the physical parameter deviates from a preset allowable range” (mathematical process); (claim 4); “integrate the differential predictive value by using, as an initial value, the state quantity satisfying a condition where the differential predictive value becomes zero” (mathematical concept); (claim 5); “wherein the flue gas desulfurization plant desulfurizes a flue gas by bringing an absorption liquid into contact with the flue gas in an absorption tower, and the state quantity is an absorbent concentration of the absorption liquid in the absorption tower” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 6) “wherein the input parameter includes at least one of a desulfurization outlet SO2 concentration of the absorption tower, a desulfurization inlet SO2 concentration of the absorption tower, a flow rate or a concentration of limestone slurry produced in the absorption tower, a power generation command signal with respect to a generator for generating electricity with steam produced in a boiler for discharging the flue gas, an air flow rate in the boiler for discharging the flue gas, an oxidizing air flow rate supplied to the absorption tower, pH of the absorption liquid in the absorption tower, or a level of the absorption liquid in the absorption tower” (data gathering or otherwise a mental process); (claim 7); “wherein the physical model includes, as a physical parameter regarding the flue gas desulfurization plant, at least one of a limestone activity, a water content in inlet gas of the absorption tower, or a humidifying rate in the absorption tower” (data gathering or otherwise a mental process); all of which further amount to further mathematical concept and/or mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
6.1 Kale et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2021/0049479) teaches systems, methods and apparatus of optimizing neural network computations of predictive maintenance of vehicles.
6.2 MA et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0063665) teaches an aero-engine full flight envelope model adaptive modification method based on a deep learning algorithm.
7. Claims 1-8 are rejected and 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights