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 .
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 1-3, 5-11, 14, 16, 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 recite mental processes of observation, judgement and evaluation that can be carried out with the aid of pen and paper. This 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 the additional element are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea. See the full analysis below for further details.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
filtering the historical measurement data to remove spurious historical measurements; (This is a mental process of a user filtering data by removing outliers and incorrect values, can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
using the cross-validation method; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user checks data to validate it is accurate.)
normalizing the filtered data historical measurement data; (Mental process of normalizing data can be done with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a user can normalize data values between 0 and 1 with the aid of pen and paper.)
filtering the testing data to withdraw spurious test data; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user filters out erroneous and outlier data readings, can be done with aid of pen and paper.)
normalizing the filtered testing data; (Mental process of normalizing data can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
predicting the values of the process measurement variable over the predetermined time frame using the model; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user predicts values of upcoming time frame based on prior values.)
assessing a performance of the model based on an occurrence of overlap between the predicted values of the process measurement variable and the normalized filtered testing data; (This is a mental process of observation and judgment wherein a user observes data for overlapping or common portions.)
writing a performance result in a historical software-monitored variable or in a graph. (This is a mental process of observation, judgement and evaluation wherein a user creates a graph from data, can be done with the aid of pen and paper. )
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
collecting historical measurement data of a process measurement variable measured by a sensor; (This is data collecting which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
training, using the filtered historical measurement data, a model comprising a recurrent neural network layer connected to a multilayer perceptron layer to predict values of the process measurement variable; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data);
optimizing the model with an Adam optimizer using the normalized, filtered historical measurement data; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data, as Adam (Adaptive Moment Estimation) is a gradient based method for training deep learning models.);
obtaining testing data from historian[[s]] software[[s]] comprising measurements of the process measurement variable over a predetermined; (This is data collecting which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
writing a performance result in a historian software-monitored variable; (This is extra-solution activity if data collection, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
“training, using the filtered historical measurement data, a model comprising a recurrent neural network layer connected to a multilayer perceptron layer to predict values of the process measurement variable; optimizing the model with an Adam optimizer using the normalized, filtered historical measurement data;” amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data.;
“collecting historical measurement data of a process measurement variable measured by a sensor; obtaining testing data from historian software comprising measurements of the process measurement variable over a predetermined; writing a performance result in a historian software-monitored variable;” amounts to collecting and storing data which is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.06(d)(iv) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”, also see MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 2
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 2 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
wherein the recurrent neural network layer is a fully recurrent neural network (FRNN), long short term memory (LSTM) or gated recurrent unit (GRU) type. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
wherein the recurrent neural network layer is a fully recurrent neural network (FRNN), long short term memory (LSTM) or gated recurrent unit (GRU) type. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they generic computer hardware used to implemented the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 3
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 3 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
Wherein the recurrent neural network layer is connected to a support vector machine model, a radial basis activation function neural network, an extreme learning machine, or an echo state neural network. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
Wherein the recurrent neural network layer is connected to a support vector machine model, a radial basis activation function neural network, an extreme learning machine, or an echo state neural network. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they generic computer hardware used to implemented the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 5 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
the recurrent neural network layer has from 10 to 100 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
the recurrent neural network layer has from 10 to 100 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they generic computer hardware used to implemented the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 6 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
the recurrent neural network layer has 30 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
the recurrent neural network layer has 30 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they generic computer hardware used to implemented the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 7 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
the multilayer perceptron layer has from 50 to 400 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
the multilayer perceptron layer has from 50 to 400 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they generic computer hardware used to implemented the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 8 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
the multilayer perceptron layer preferably has 100 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
the multilayer perceptron layer preferably has 100 neurons. (This is cited a high level of generality and results in using the machine learning model as tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they generic computer hardware used to implemented the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claims 9 and 10
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 9 and 10 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
Wherein a data acquisition frequency of the testing data is from 1/60 to 10,000 samples per second (claim 9); where the data acquisition frequency is preferably 1/30 samples per second. (claim 10) (This amount to data collection as it saying how fast data collection is happening, thus it is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they mere extra-solution activity in combination with the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
Wherein a data acquisition frequency of the testing data is from 1/60 to 10,000 samples per second (claim 9); where the data acquisition frequency is preferably 1/30 samples per second. (claim 10) (This amount to data collection as it saying how fast data collection is happening, thus it is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). also collecting data is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they mere extra-solution activity in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 11
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 11 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
the historical measurement data comprise a time frame of not less than 1 day. (This amount to receiving data, as it receiving data from a time frame, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they mere extra-solution activity in combination with the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
the historical measurement data comprise a time frame of not less than 1 day. (This amount to data collection and thus it is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Also collecting data is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they mere extra-solution activity in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 14
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 14 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
wherein the model is cross-validated using a holdout, k-fold or leave one out method. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high training and performance measuring).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they mere extra-solution activity in combination with the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
wherein the model is cross-validated using a holdout, k-fold or leave one out method. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high training and performance measuring).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they mere extra-solution activity in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 16
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Wherein normalizing the filtered historical measurement data comprises normalizing the filtered historical measurement data by an arithmetic mean and standard deviation, or between any two values, or by forcing a normal statistical distribution, or applying any linear transformation to the filtered historical measurement data such as main component analysis prior to training. (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user normalizing data thru the use of mathematical operations, this can be done with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a user has historical data values 1, 10 and 20 and the user can normalize the data be between 0 and 1 by dividing the data by 20, so the new normalized data is 0.05, 0.5 and 1.)
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above there no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There no additional limitations.
Claim 18
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
For predicted values of the process measurement variable that overlap with the normalized filtered data, calculating an arithmetic mean (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user finds common values in data and calculates a mean of them, can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
Applying a linear meta model or non-linear meta model. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
Applying a linear meta model or non-linear meta model. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 19
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 19 inherits the abstract idea of claim 18.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
the linear meta model is a linear regression or a weighted average. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
the linear meta model is a linear regression or a weighted average. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 20
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 20 inherits the abstract idea of claim 18.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
the non-linear meta model is: neural network, support vector machine, radial basis activation function neural networks, Extreme Learning Machines, echo state neural networks and K-nearest neighbors. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
the non-linear meta model is: neural network, support vector machine, radial basis activation function neural networks, Extreme Learning Machines, echo state neural networks and K-nearest neighbors. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 21 and 22
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 21 and 22 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
wherein a recurrent network activation function of the recurrent neural network layer is a hyperbolic tangent type (claim 21); wherein a multilayer perceptron layer activation function of the multilayer perceptron layer is a linear type. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
wherein a recurrent network activation function of the recurrent neural network layer is a hyperbolic tangent type (claim 21); wherein a multilayer perceptron layer activation function of the multilayer perceptron layer is a linear type. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they mere extra-solution activity in combination in combination with generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the amendments to claims overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite, the claim objection to claim 2 and rejection of the claim under 35 USC 103. The examiner agrees and the rejections have been withdrawn.
The applicant argues the rejection under 35 USC 101 for being abstract idea is improper and should be withdrawn. Applicant argues that instant application claim 1 does not disclose a mental process as it is similar to example 39 as it collects data, manipulating the collected data and training a model based on the manipulated data. This cannot be performed practically in the human mind. Applicant further argues that none of the limitations of claim 1 can be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant also argues that claims are integrated into a practical application as it is an improvement to technology by predicting values of faulty sensors.
The examiner respectfully traverses the applicant’s arguments and maintains that the claims are abstract idea. The claims of the instant application are not similar to example 36 and it collected facial images and performed transformation on the facial images, training a model using the images, collected the misclassified examples, and retrained the model using those. The instant application claims does not deal with facial image collection, transformation of the facial image, training a model using the facial image, collecting the misclassified image, and retraining using those. As such it not similar to example 39. Additionally claim 1 has several limitations that be performed in the human mind, those limitations are:
filtering the historical measurement data to remove spurious historical measurements; (This is a mental process of a user filtering data by removing outliers and incorrect values, can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
using the cross-validation method; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user checks data to validate it is accurate.)
normalizing the filtered data historical measurement data; (Mental process of normalizing data can be done with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a user can normalize data values between 0 and 1 with the aid of pen and paper.)
filtering the testing data to withdraw spurious test data; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user filters out erroneous and outlier data readings, can be done with aid of pen and paper.)
normalizing the filtered testing data; (Mental process of normalizing data can be done with the aid of pen and paper.)
predicting the values of the process measurement variable over the predetermined time frame using the model; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user predicts values of upcoming time frame based on prior values.)
assessing a performance of the model based on an occurrence of overlap between the predicted values of the process measurement variable and the normalized filtered testing data; (This is a mental process of observation and judgment wherein a user observes data for overlapping or common portions, and judges the performance.)
writing a performance result in a historical software-monitored variable or in a graph. (This is a mental process of observation, judgement and evaluation wherein a user creates a graph from data, can be done with the aid of pen and paper. )
All of these step of mental processes of observation, evaluation and judgement and performed with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, they claims do contain mental processes. The additional limitations of the claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it is mere generic computer hardware in combination with extra-solution activity used implement the abstract idea. The additional limitations are:
collecting historical measurement data of a process measurement variable measured by a sensor; (This is data collecting which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
training, using the filtered historical measurement data, a model comprising a recurrent neural network layer connected to a multilayer perceptron layer to predict values of the process measurement variable; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data);
optimizing the model with an Adam optimizer using the normalized, filtered historical measurement data; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data, as Adam (Adaptive Moment Estimation) is a gradient based method for training deep learning models.);
obtaining testing data from historian[[s]] software[[s]] comprising measurements of the process measurement variable over a predetermined; (This is data collecting which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
writing a performance result in a historian software-monitored variable; (This is extra-solution activity if data collection, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer hardware that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
These limitation also do not amount to significantly more. The limitations are:
“training, using the filtered historical measurement data, a model comprising a recurrent neural network layer connected to a multilayer perceptron layer to predict values of the process measurement variable; optimizing the model with an Adam optimizer using the normalized, filtered historical measurement data;”; This amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level recitation of training a machine learning model with previously determined data.;
“collecting historical measurement data of a process measurement variable measured by a sensor; obtaining testing data from historian software comprising measurements of the process measurement variable over a predetermined; writing a performance result in a historian software-monitored variable;”; This amounts to collecting and storing data which is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.06(d)(iv) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”, also see MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. For these reason the examiner maintains that claims are directed to abstract idea that is not integrated into practical application nor does it amount to significantly more and thus the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULINHO E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at 571-270-3169. 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.
/PAULINHO E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights