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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending. This action is a non-final office action on the merits.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to software per se.
Here Claim 1 which is the sole independent claim is directed to “a neural network for managing…. ”, No pre-amble demarcation is apparent, so first of all it’s not clear where the pre-amble ends. However, for the purpose of examination the examiner will presume, “wherein at least one digital stopwatch is provided” would be the first limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is a method for configurating a neural network….. This claim should be in the same configuration as the claim it depends from. Method is a valid class but, it lacks any actual elements and hardware.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5, but, is unclear in view of 5 already introduced neural network as did claim 1. Are these the same or different neural networks?
Claim 7 “the use of a neural network” is not a statutory class of invention.
Claim 8 “program product or non transitory computer readable medium is confusing because it could be one or the other. Non-transitory computer readable medium would be acceptable if by itself.
Claim 9 “a computing unit” is not clear as no unit has preen claimed. Computing unit is not a class of invention.
Claim 10 “a logistic system” likewise relies on claims 9 and 8 which are unclear. There is no pre-amble and the claim appears to define the generic environment for implementing claim 1.
Claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
In regards to claim 1 which is the independent claim; (claims 2-10 depend on claim 1)
Claim 1 is a neural network which is software. It arguably contains a digital stopwatch which may be software. As claimed this is a mental process and/or software which could also be software per -se.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend on claim 1. However, Claim 4 infers the use of a light barrier and two stop watches. These might be claimed in a manner as to provide some physical elements.
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case the process is one that can be performed mentally.
Claim 1 as a “neural network” is a valid class of invention if it contained physical elements such as a processor or computing system. Otherwise, it is not a proper statutory class.
The abstract elements Include;
1. A neural network for managing processes with temporal development into the past using input data, which describe a state of the process, and output data derived therefrom by the neural network, wherein at least one digital stopwatch is provided, a. the value of which is supplied to the neural network as a further input data item, and b. which is set to an initial value in the event of a specific change in one of the input data items and then indicates to the neural network an increasing distance from this time with a rising or falling profile of its value.
Step 2A prong 1 the claims recite an abstract idea. (no clearly physical elements) The recitation of generic elements, such as a stopwatch would not necessarily make the claims ineligible
The invention is not integrated into a practical application. The argued potential physical elements such as stopwatch are generic. There are no more than instructions to apply an idea.
Step 2A prong 2 – the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B the claims do claims do not provided significantly more – No
It is noted that for example claim 4 has a light barrier that might be incorporated as a physical element. As currently claimed it is “a state of a light barrier”. Applicant could positively recite the various physical elements to create a technical claim. Claim 10 appears to introduce conveyor lines but, these should be properly claimed with a preamble etc.
Claim 3 contains “stopwatch” which appears to refer to “a digital stopwatch”
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b)
The following claims 1, and dependents lack antecedent basis. A list of the items is below.
While the lack of antecedent basis does not guarantee un-clarity, in this case, any element referring to another one already introduced should be in the same tense. The claims are replete with antecedent basis concerns so, the list below are just examples.
claim 10- “the control” lacks antecedent basis (none was introduced previously)
“the past” lacks antecedent basis, (claims 1, 5, and 7), is it previously introduced? How does one manage processes in the past in the first place.
“the value” lacks antecedent basis, the value is followed by “initial value” and then it’s value
claim 2,,3 the value of the stopwatch, is this the digital stopwatch? (antecedent basis)
Claim 2 between the value…. “it’s initial value”, then the values.
Claim 1 “the event” lacks antecedent basis? What event
Claim 1, 4, 5 “input data” lacks clear antecedent basis consistency. (ie the input data items (claim 1) , “the at least one input data items” claim 2, etc.
Claim 4 “of binary values” then “the binary value” … are these the same?
Claim 5, “the network” is it the neural network? “a neural network configured as in claim 1” is this “the neural network”
claim 10 each of the “one or more parallel conveyor lines”, “conveying direction” lacks antecedent basis. “the control” antecedent basis.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will presume antecedent basis is correct and broadly interpret as best possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Smallridge 20100257130 in view of US Patent Publication to Hartmann 20170100749
As per claim 1, Smallridge discloses;
wherein at least one digital stopwatch is provided,
Smallridge(0080-0082, timers, in 0108 time stamps are collected, thus some form of timer is being utilized)
a. the value of which is supplied to the neural network as a further input data item,
and Smallridge(0122, 0168)
b. which is set to an initial value in the event of a specific change in one of the input data items and then indicates to the neural network an increasing distance from this time with a rising or falling profile of its value.
Smallridge (0097)
Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
Hartmann(0030, neural network, “or is a choice” for a conveyor line)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the conveying system of Hartmann with the timer system of Smallridge for the motivation of “ efficient unloading” (0004)
As per claim 2 Smallridge disclose;
The neural network as claimed in claim 1, wherein the profile of the value of the stopwatch rises or falls a. linearly,
b. exponentially,
or c. on the basis of differences between the value of at least one of the input data items at the time at which the stopwatch was last reset to its initial value and the values of these input data at the subsequent times. Smallridge(this is a choice, it appears that the timestamps are compared… see 6a, 6b fig.) see also Hartmann, choice of one, linear 0082
As per claim 3 Smallridge discloses;
The neural network as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stopwatch is stopped after a certain time has elapsed.
Smallridge (0085)
As per claim 4, Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
The neural network as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one input data item is a state of a light barrier which, within the scope of the temporally developed process, alternately indicates the presence and absence of piece goods passing by the light barrier with the aid of binary values, and two stopwatches (SU31_up, SU31_down) are provided for this input data item, one of which is reset when the beginning of the presence is indicated by a change in the binary value and the other of which is reset when the beginning of the absence is indicated by a change in the binary value.
Hartmann(0014)
As per claim 5, Smallridge discloses;
A method for configuring a neural network configured as claimed in claim 1, in which the 0 configuration is effected by data-based training of the network with the aid of input data for the process from the past.
Smallridge(0134, “effected” and training….. , historical data are all very generic elements because how much effect, how much past data, what process etc)
As per claim 6, Smallridge discloses; A neural network trained according to claim 5. (Smallridge fig. 1)
As per claim 7, Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
The use of a neural network configured as claimed in claim 1 to predict at least one likely future behavior of an industrial installation in which at least two processes take place at the same time in a relative dependence on one another and are at least partially controlled relative to one another on the basis of their temporal development into the past.
Hartmann(0024, “observer, predictor design… self learning is for the future. Further behavior is a very generic recitation as anything could be a behavior, “relative dependence” is relative, “partly” could be a little bit)
As per claim 8 Smallridge discloses; A computer program product or non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions, which when executed by a processor implements a neural network as claimed in
claim 1 when the computer program product is executed by a computer.
(0019)
As per claim 9 Smallridge discloses; A computing unit comprising a computer program product as claimed in claim 8. (0019, computing unit could be a computer)
As per claim 10 Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
A logistics system having one or more parallel conveyor lines for piece goods, which each lead to a combining unit in the conveying direction, wherein each of the conveyor lines
includes a plurality of partial conveyor lines which are accelerated or decelerated by a respectively associated drive under the control of a computing unit configured as claimed in claim 9 in order to enable the combining unit to combine the piece goods onto a single output conveyor line at a defined distance.
Hartmann is directed to conveying systems, see fig. 1
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the conveying system of Hartmann with the timer system of Smallridge for the motivation of “ efficient unloading” (0004)
Conclusion
A search of IP.com resulted in the following references being identified;
Data Management in Industry 4.0: State of the Art and Open Challenges, IEEE 2019
Essential Technologies and Concepts for Massive Space Exploration: Challenges and Opportunities, IEEE 2023
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693