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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-9 and 20 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues that the groups overlap such that the same features are in each of the groups and the groups are not mutually exclusive because dependent claims of each group include subject matter from the independent claim of the other invention and that such overlap indicates that there is no search burden. This is not persuasive.
Per MPEP 806.05(j), related processes are distinct if
The inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e. are mutually exclusive,
The inventions as claimed are not obvious variants, and
The intentions as claimed are either not capable of use together or have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect.
Regarding (a), mutual exclusivity is shown via divergent subject matter in Inventions I and II. As noted in the Requirement for Restriction dated 10/08/2025, Invention I requires determining a state of the manufacturing system based on the predicted operational characteristic, whereas Invention II does not. Invention II requires autoencoder training data as well as neural network training, whereas Invention I does not.
Further examples of limitations required by Invention II which are not required by Invention I include:
Determining whether a given autoencoder is trained based on a difference between the autoencoder training data and replicated autoencoder training data
Generating a neural network training operational indicator based on neural network training data in response to a determination that the given autoencoder is trained
A method for training a plurality of autoencoders, a plurality of neural networks, and a plurality of linear propagators.
Further examples of limitations required by Invention I which are not required by Invention II include:
Monitoring a manufacturing system comprising a plurality of manufacturing stations
generating, by a given autoencoder, an operational indicator based on sensor data
a linear mapping model which aggregates the given operational indicator and one or more additional operational indicators
determining a state of the manufacturing system
Furthermore, in general claims 1-9 and 20 are drawn to the manufacturing system whereas claims 10-19 are not drawn to a manufacturing system but to a method of training components utilized in the control of a manufacturing system.
Applicant’s contention that the dependent claims of each group include limitations in each independent claim is not found persuasive because, for example, the elements of claims 11-19 are not found in claim 1 and the elements of claims 2-9 are not found in claim 10.
With regard to (b), there is no indication that the inventions are obvious variants of one another.
Regarding (c), the mutual exclusivity outlined above also shows the materially different designs of the inventions. Furthermore, the claims explicitly claim different mode of operation, function and/or effect (Invention I a method of monitoring and Invention II a method of training).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
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 1-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
“generating…a given operational indicator based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors disposed at a given manufacturing station from among the plurality of manufacturing stations” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“monitoring a manufacturing system comprising a plurality of manufacturing stations, a plurality of autoencoders, a plurality of neural networks, and a plurality of linear propagators” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“generating… in response to generating the aggregated operational indicator, a predicted operational characteristic of the given manufacturing station based on the given operational indicator and the aggregated operational indicator” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“determining a state of the manufacturing system based on the predicted operational characteristic and one or more additional predicted operational characteristics generated by the one or more additional neural networks from among the plurality of neural networks” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“by a given autoencoder from among the plurality of autoencoders… wherein the given autoencoder is associated with a given linear propagator from among the plurality of linear propagators, and wherein the given autoencoder is associated with a given neural network from among the plurality of neural networks” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“selectively aggregating, by the given linear propagator and based on a linear mapping model, the given operational indicator and one or more additional operational indicators associated with one or more additional manufacturing stations from among the plurality of manufacturing stations to selectively generate an aggregated operational indicator” – This amounts to mere data gathering, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data preparation incidental to the primary process of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by the given neural network” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“by a given autoencoder from among the plurality of autoencoders… wherein the given autoencoder is associated with a given linear propagator from among the plurality of linear propagators, and wherein the given autoencoder is associated with a given neural network from among the plurality of neural networks” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“selectively aggregating, by the given linear propagator and based on a linear mapping model, the given operational indicator and one or more additional operational indicators associated with one or more additional manufacturing stations from among the plurality of manufacturing stations to selectively generate an aggregated operational indicator” – This amounts to mere data gathering, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data preparation incidental to the primary process of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by the given neural network” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 2 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 2 recites the following abstract ideas:
Each of the abstract ideas of claim 1
“generating…in response to not generating the aggregated operational indicator, the predicted operational characteristic based on the given operational indicator.” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
“by the given neural network” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
“by the given neural network” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 3
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 3 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 3 recites the following abstract ideas:
“determining whether one or more manufacturing stations from among the plurality of manufacturing stations precedes the given manufacturing station” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
“aggregating the given operational indicator and the one or more additional operational indicators to selectively generate the aggregated operational indicator in response to the one or more manufacturing stations preceding the given manufacturing station” - This amounts to mere data gathering, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data preparation incidental to the primary process of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
“aggregating the given operational indicator and the one or more additional operational indicators to selectively generate the aggregated operational indicator in response to the one or more manufacturing stations preceding the given manufacturing station” - This amounts to mere data gathering, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data preparation incidental to the primary process of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 4
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 4 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 4 recites the following abstract ideas:
“generating…an additional predicted operational characteristic based on the aggregated operational indicator and an additional operational indicator associated with the additional neural network” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 4 recites the following additional elements:
“propagating, by the given linear propagator, the aggregated operational indicator to an additional neural network from among the plurality of neural networks, wherein the additional neural network is associated with a subsequent manufacturing station from among the plurality of manufacturing stations” - This amounts to mere data gathering, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data preparation incidental to the primary process of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by the additional neural network” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 4 recites the following additional elements:
“propagating, by the given linear propagator, the aggregated operational indicator to an additional neural network from among the plurality of neural networks, wherein the additional neural network is associated with a subsequent manufacturing station from among the plurality of manufacturing stations” - This amounts to mere data gathering, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data preparation incidental to the primary process of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“by the additional neural network” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 5 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 5 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 5 recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the given autoencoder is a variational autoencoder” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 5 recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the given autoencoder is a variational autoencoder” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 6
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 6 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 6 recites the following abstract ideas:
“generating the given operational indicator based on the sensor data further comprises converting…the sensor data into a latent space representation of the sensor data.” – This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 6 recites the following additional elements:
“by the given autoencoder” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 6 recites the following additional elements:
“by the given autoencoder” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 7
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 7 is drawn to a process
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 7 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the linear mapping model comprises a Koopman operator.” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the linear mapping model comprises a Koopman operator.” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 8
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 8 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 8 recites the following abstract ideas:
“selectively adjusting one or more manufacturing routine characteristics of the plurality of manufacturing stations based on the state of the manufacturing system and a backpropagation routine.” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. For example, a human can adjust a manufacturing process on the basis of an output from a system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 8 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 8 does not recite additional elements.
Claim 9
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 9 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 9 recites the following abstract ideas:
“determining a sensor-based operational characteristic of the given manufacturing station based on the sensor data” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“selectively adjusting one or more parameters of the given neural network based on a comparison between the sensor-based operational characteristic and the predicted operational characteristic.” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. A human can perform the claimed comparison and establish an adjusted parameter for a neural network. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 9 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 9 does not recite additional elements.
Regarding claim 20, the analysis applied to claims 1, 5, and 7 applies in the same way to claim 20.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, and therefore claims 2-9, are not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art. Notwithstanding the rejections under 35 USC 101, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Cherian (US20180150052A1) is the closest prior art of record. Figure 4 is reproduced below and is representative of the disclosure:
PNG
media_image1.png
498
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Figure 4, the general conditions of the claim with respect to a singular manufacturing station are known. Sensors provide input into (110), which can be an autoencoder which performs dimensionality reduction, passing the latent vectors into (120), which is a neural network. Subsequently, the output of the neural network is input into a process controller (130) in order to control the manufacturing station and the process is repeated.
Cherian does not disclose or suggest multiple manufacturing stations or the linear propagator which utilizes a linear mapping.
Yan (Yan, Hao, et al. "Deep multistage multi-task learning for quality prediction of multistage manufacturing systems." Journal of Quality Technology 53.5 (2021): 526-544.) discloses multiple manufacturing stages with the use of an interconnected neural network. Figure 1 is reproduced below and is representative of the disclosure:
PNG
media_image2.png
807
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 shows five manufacturing stages where each subsequent stage is connected to the previous via the layers of a stage’s associated neural network. In the context of the claimed invention, this establishes a basis for multiple interconnected manufacturing stages and coupled with Cherian establishes obviousness for multiple interconnected manufacturing stages where each stage is characterized as shown in Figure 4 of Cherian.
However, a linear propagator is absent from both Yan and Cherian. Linear propagators and linear mappings are common in control systems but the prior art lacks a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to incorporate a linear propagator in the manner claimed in claim 1.
In short, while the individual components of claim 1 may be generally known, the prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the particular combination of the components and their interconnection as claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129