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 .
Status of Claim
The following is an Office Action in response to communications filed on 3 of December 2025.
Claims 1, 9, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 19 and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-18, and 20-22 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant respectfully submits that even if the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "concepts performed in the human mind" and "Mathematical Concepts" as claimed, claims 1 and 9 as currently amended amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In particular, independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to a practical application-namely, improving an operation of an industrial production process by "determin[ing] a predictive accuracy of at least one of the plurality of input channels relative to the state value, and provide an adjustment recommendation based, at least in part, on the predictive accuracy; an analysis response component configured to control the industrial production process in response to the adjustment recommendation.". The examiner respectfully disagrees. Under prong two, additional elements in claim 1 do not “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” (See 2019 Guidance at 54.) As such, under step one of the Alice framework, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and we move to step two. The claimed output is an adjustment recommendation to the industrial process to at least one entity. ¶1706 of the specification discloses that an entity can be workers (e.g. humans), while the analysis is performed by a neural network which under the BRI is an algorithm disclosed at a high generality. The steps of gathering data, analyzing data, and outputting results, constitute "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to certain arrangements involving contractual relations are directed to abstract ideas). The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Thus, the claims recite the judicial exceptions of commercial or legal interactions, organizing human activity, and a mental process (i.e. observation, judgment).
Applicant asserts that the invention reflects an improvement to a technical field in view of Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567 (September 26, 2025) (designated: November 4, 2025) which notes that "many AI innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and nonobvious" because that are equated with "with an unpatentable "algorithm" and the remaining additional elements as "generic computer components," without adequate explanation." Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567 (September 26, 2025) ( designated: November 4, 2025), p. 9, lines 19-21. The examiner respectfully disagrees. DesJardins claims are aimed at improving the functioning of the machine learning model itself, citing reduced storage requirements, lowered system complexity, and the prevention of "catastrophic forgetting." DesJardins identifies improvements in training the machine learning. For example, one improvement identified in the Specification is to "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks." Spec. ,r 21. The Specification also recites that the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "us[e] less of their storage capacity" and enables "reduced system complexity." Id. When evaluating the claim as a whole, we discern at least the following limitation of independent claim 1 that reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." The instant application does not follow the same fact pattern or claims an improvement to technology. Again, under BRI, an entity can be a human, an industrial environment could be comprised of one equipment with one or two sensors, all things a human is able to monitor and record mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Further, the output is a recommendation to a human to perform adjustments. Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1 by the generic computer system to optimize a fleet of vehicles for delivery or pickup using different attributes are purely conventional. Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in claims 1 and 9 nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. Therefore, pending claims 1-4, 7, 9-18, and 20-22 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The term “expert system” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “expert system” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “expert system” is subjective and lacks specificity on what it takes to become an expert system and what functions the system performs being an expert system vs. a system.
The term “other neurons” in claims 1 and 9 renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear what original neurons are being referenced in order to have “other neurons”. Is the applicant suggesting that “other neurons” are synonymous of “a neural network”?
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 10-18, and 20-22 inherit the deficiencies of the independent Claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, 7, 9-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 9 recites “a data collector component, communicatively coupled to a plurality of input channels, wherein the plurality of input channels comprises data from and data about an element of an industrial production process, the element comprising at least one of a machine, a component, a system, a sub-system, an ambient condition, a state, a workflow, or a process; a data storage component configured to store a plurality of detection values that corresponds to the plurality of input channels; a data analysis component configured to interpret at least a subset of the plurality of detection values to determine a state value, wherein the state value comprises at least one of: a sensor state, a process state, or a component state; an optimization component configured to: analyze the at least the subset of the plurality of detection values and the state value using at least one of a neural net or an expert system, wherein analyzing the subset of the plurality of detection values using the at least one of the neural net or the expert system includes: implementing a neural network approach utilizing weighted triggering of multiple input stimuli into analytical engines which feed simplified weighted outputs to other neurons, and wherein analyzing the subset of the plurality of detection values includes implementing a pattern recognition circuit structured to: determine a recognized pattern value in response to sensor data values access cloud-based data comprising sensor data values from offset industrial systems determine a signal effectiveness of sensors relative to a value of interest determine a sensitivity of sensors relative to the value of interest determine a predictive confidence relative to the value of interest and update the recognized pattern value in response to external feedback; determine a predictive accuracy of at least one of the plurality of input channels relative to the state value, and provide an adjustment recommendation based, at least in part, on the predictive accuracy; an analysis response component configured to control the industrial production process in response to the adjustment recommendation; a relevance calculation component to determine a relevance of the adjustment recommendation to at least one role type stored within a role taxonomy; and a reporting component to report the adjustment recommendation to the industrial production process to at least one entity associated with the at least one role type stored within the role taxonomy”. Claim 9 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 recites “generating and maintaining a digital twin that: implements a graph database defining relationships between a set of digital twins, wherein the graph database creates nodes for at least one of: an environment, a system or subsystem of an environment, a device in an environment, a sensor in an environment, or a process performed in an environment; updates properties of at least one of the set of digital twins using a digital twin dynamic model system to represent industrial entities and environments in real-time based on sensor data and dynamic models; and simulates”. Claim 16 discloses similar limitations as Claim 21, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Mathematical Concepts” such as “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 10-15, 17-20, and 22 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, dependent claims 16-18, and 21-22 recite additional elements “digital twins(s)”, “a graph database”, “sensors”, and “a device”. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 9, 16-18, and 21-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶978 "in embodiments, as illustrated in FIGS. 97 and 98 , a data collection system 9746 may have a plurality of monitoring devices 9728 collecting data on multiple components in a single piece of equipment, collecting data on the same component across a plurality of pieces of equipment, (both the same and different types of equipment) in the same facility as well as collecting data from monitoring devices in multiple facilities. A monitoring application 9736 on a remote server 9734 may receive and store one or more of detection values, timing signals and data coming from a plurality of the various monitoring devices 9728”.
Claims 2-4, 7, 10-15, and 20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 01/06/2025