DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 27 April 2026. Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been amended. Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled. Claim 8 was previously cancelled. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are pending in this application.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 24 March 2026, with respect to objected claims 1, 5, and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 24 March 2026 and entered in the Request for Continued Examination filed on 27 April 2026. The objections of claims 1, 5, and 6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 24 March 2026, with respect to rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered but are moot because claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled in the claims filed on 24 March 2026 and entered in the Request for Continued Examination filed on 27 April 2026.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9-16, filed 24 March 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner’s Note: The arguments set forth below were previously addressed in the Advisory Action mailed on 9 April 2026 in light of the After Final Amendment filed on 24 March 2026. The arguments/amendment have been considered and addressed again pursuant to the Request for Continued Examination (filed on 27 April 2026) in consideration of the After Final Amendment (filed on 24 March 2026). The response to the arguments are substantially the same as those set forth in the Advisory action.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments,
Applicant continues to believe the claimed method would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be limited to a useful practical application, i.e., controlling a multivariable process installation in a manner that improves efficiency, reduces human effort, and maintains operational safety of the installation. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 1)
Contrary to the asserted position, applicant respectfully submits the claimed improvement is not in merely computing an equation or automating an abstract mathematical operation. Instead, the improvement lies in the way a process installation is excited, measured, constrained, and ultimately controlled to generate high-information-content dynamic data and automatically derive a process model that is then executed to control the process installation. These improvements are directed to the technological field of industrial process control - not to abstract data manipulation - and therefore constitute a practical application of applicants' claimed invention. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 3)
As stated, applicant's claimed control system and method provide an improvement to the technological field of process control systems (automation systems), and is therefore in fact limited to a useful practical application. (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 5)
Applicant's claimed invention is directed to an control system and method that seek to automate the identification of the process model for a model-based, predictive multivariable control of a process installation and to significantly reduce the outlay involved in the identification, which is identified as a problem in the technological field of the invention (see, e.g., paragraphs [0003] and [0007] of the published application). (see Remarks, pg. 13, paragraph 4)
With respect to the foregoing, applicant contends the claims include wording to the effect of "automatically identifying the process model for the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation via a least error squares method based on the values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables stored in the computer- implemented data memory" and "operating the process installation and executing the automatically identified process model to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model", which provide an improvement to the technological field of process control systems (automation systems) in which a process model for a model-based, predictive control of a multivariable system is identified (see, e.g., paragraph [0039] of the published application). (see Remarks, pg. 14, paragraph 2)
Applicant's claims in fact encompass "a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome", which is consistent with the holding of McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. Furthermore, applicant's instant claims do not merely identify a process model; they require that the automatically identified model be executed to control the process installation. This step provides a real-world physical effect - adjusting manipulated variables, enforcing process limits, and stabilizing plant operation - thereby placing applicant's instant claimed invention squarely in the realm of technological improvements to industrial automation systems. By replacing conventionally planned step tests with an automated excitation and steady-state detection method that produces data having a high information content for dynamic identification¹ without violating operational limits², applicant's claimed control system and method significantly reduce the time, operational disturbance, and human effort required to identify predictive-control models. Moreover, because the automatically identified process model is subsequently executed to perform model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation, applicant's invention improves the speed, efficiency, and stability with which the process installation itself operates. (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 2)
MPEP 2160.05(a) recites:
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
The Examiner recognizes the Applicant has set forth advantages of use (i.e. benefits of “… improves efficiency, reduces human effort, and maintains operational safety of the installation”. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 1); “… generate high-information-content dynamic data and automatically derive a process model that is then executed to control the process installation.” (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 3); “… to significantly reduce the outlay involved in the identification, which is identified as a problem in the technological field of the invention …” (see Remarks, pg. 13, paragraph 4); and “significantly reduce the time, operational disturbance, and human effort required to identify predictive-control models. … improves the speed, efficiency, and stability with which the process installation itself operates.” (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 2)) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II); i.e. The Applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to how/why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to identifying a model that is utilized during operation of a process installation as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claim 6). Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Additionally, the Applicant has neither provided any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously presented additional element of “operating the technical installation and executing the automatically identified technical model to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model” nor the newly presented limitation of “operating the process installation and executing the automatically identified process model to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model” in claim 1, and similarly in claim 6, represent more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) in step 2A, prong two and step 2B. In step 2A, prong two, “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) Further, the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)) In step 2B, the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)) Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Claims 1 and 6 stand objected to, claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of "the step of a) …" in line 24, “the step of b) …” in line 30, “the step of c) …” in line 34, “the step of d) …” in line 37, ‘the step of e) …” in line 41, “the step of f) …” in line 45, and “the step of g) …” in line 52. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 includes the grammatical of “… each of the controlled variables once again has a steady state …” in line 36. Suggested claim language: of “…each of the controlled variables once again have a steady state …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 6 recites the limitations of "the step of a) …" in line 25, “the step of b) …” in line 33, “the step of c) …” in line 37, “the step of d) …” in line 41, ‘the step of e) …” in line 46, “the step of f) …” in line 51, “the step of g) …” in line 60, and "the process installation” in lines 69 and 71. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 includes the grammatical issues of “… each controlled variable once again has a steady state …” in lines 38-40. Suggested claim language: of “… each of the controlled variables once again have a steady state …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
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, 2, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claim 1 (line 27) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Hence, the limitation of “a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band” is rendered indefinite by use of “about”.
Claims 2 and 5, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
The term “about” in claim 6 (line 29) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Hence, the limitation of “a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band” is rendered indefinite by use of “about”.
Claim 7, dependent from claim 6, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 6 recites “the process installation” in lines 69 and 71 and claim 7 recites “… wherein the technical installation comprises a manufacturing installation or process installation” in lines 1-2. Claim 7 is unclear as to whether the claim is directed to a second process installation from that recited in claim 6 or to the process installation as recited in claim 6. Hence, claim 7 is rendered indefinite.
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, 2, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Clam 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) computer-implemented method for automated identification of a process model for a model-based, predictive multivariable control of a process installation” comprising a plurality of steps which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determining a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data”; “specifying a permitted deviation of each of the controlled variables from the respective operating point of a respective controlled variable, the permitted deviation comprising six times the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable”; “providing a respective low-pass filtration for the controlled variables, a filter time constant of the low-pass filtration being selected such that the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable is smaller by a factor of 2 to 6 with the low-pass filtration than without the low-pass filtration”; “the step of a) starting from an operating point, a manipulated variable is excited in a ramp-shaped manner until a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band about respective operating points of the controlled variables, each tolerance band being twice the standard deviation of the respective controlled variable”; “the step of b) determining an excitation amplitude of the manipulated variable which was required during step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band”; “the step of d) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state”; “the step of e) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a negative fourfold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state”; “the step of f) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with the positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state, an immediate transition to a subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during steps d) and e)”; and “automatically identifying the process model for the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation via a least error squares method based on the values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables stored in the computer-implemented data memory”.
The limitation of “determining a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining desired data) using an instruction or rule (i.e. historical measured data), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “specifying a permitted deviation of each of the controlled variables from the respective operating point of a respective controlled variable, the permitted deviation comprising six times the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “providing a respective low-pass filtration for the controlled variables, a filter time constant of the low-pass filtration being selected such that the standard deviation of the respective controlled variable is smaller by a factor of 2 to 6 with the low-pass filtration than without the low-pass filtration” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of a) starting from an operating point, a manipulated variable is excited in a ramp-shaped manner until a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band about respective operating points of the controlled variables, each tolerance band being twice the standard deviation of the respective controlled variable” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “ the step of b) determining an excitation amplitude of the manipulated variable which was required during step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining desired data) using an instruction or rule (i.e. a requirement during step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of d) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state”” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of e) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a negative fourfold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of f) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with the positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state, an immediate transition to a subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during steps d) and e)”” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “automatically identifying the process model for the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation via a least error squares method based on the values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables stored in the computer-implemented data memory” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240036533 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0022] and pg. 4, par. [0052]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a process installation”, “providing historical measured data from a production operation of the process installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation”; “sampling the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time”; “the step of c) returning the manipulated variable to its operating point and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again has a steady state”; “the step of g) storing values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables during execution of the steps a) to f) in a computer-implemented data memory”; and “operating the process installation and executing the automatically identified process model to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model”.
The limitation of “a computer-implemented data memory” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “a process installation” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “providing historical measured data from a production operation of the process installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation” is recited at a high level of generality and represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data is used in the abstract concept of “determining a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable …”. The “providing” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… sampling the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time”; “the step of c) returning the manipulated variable to its operating point and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again has a steady state”; and “the step of g) storing values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables during execution of the steps a) to f) in a computer-implemented data memory” represent mere data gathering of information. The limitations of “sampling”, “returning”, and “storing” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “operating the process installation and executing the automatically identified process model to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “a computer-implemented data memory”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “a process installation” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… sampling the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time”; “the step of c) returning the manipulated variable to its operating point and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again has a steady state”; and “the step of g) storing values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables during execution of the steps a) to f) in a computer-implemented data memory”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “operating the process installation and executing the automatically identified process model to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model” represent an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “a mean value of a manipulated variable is calculated from the historical measured data to determine each respective operating point”.
The limitation of “a mean value of a manipulated variable is calculated from the historical measured data to determine each respective operating point” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
The limitation of claim 5 merely further details “a respective standard deviation” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 6:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) control system for a technical installation” comprising of concrete devices (i.e. a computer including a processor and a memory, a technical/process installation, and a computer-implemented data memory), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determine a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data”; “specify a permitted deviation of each of the controlled variables from the respective operating point of the respective controlled variable, the permitted deviation comprising six times the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable”; “provide a respective low-pass filtration for the controlled variables, a filter time constant of the low-pass filtration being selected such that the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable is smaller by a factor of 2 to 6 with the low-pass filtration than without the low-pass filtration”; “the step of a) starting from an operating point, a manipulated variable is excited in a ramp-shaped manner until a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band about respective operating points of the controlled variables, each tolerance band being twice the standard deviation of the respective controlled variable”; “the step of b) determining an excitation amplitude of the manipulated variable which was required during step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band”; “the step of d) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state”; “the step of e) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a negative fourfold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state”; and “the step of f) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with the positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state, an immediate transition to a subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during the steps d) and e)”; and “… the process model for the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation is automatically identified via a least error squares method based on the values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables stored in the computer-implemented data memory”.
The limitation of “determine a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determine desired data) using an instruction or rule (i.e. historical measured data), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “specify a permitted deviation of each of the controlled variables from the respective operating point of the respective controlled variable, the permitted deviation comprising six times the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “provide a respective low-pass filtration for the controlled variables, a filter time constant of the low-pass filtration being selected such that the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable is smaller by a factor of 2 to 6 with the low-pass filtration than without the low-pass filtration” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of a) starting from an operating point, a manipulated variable is excited in a ramp-shaped manner until a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band about respective operating points of the controlled variables, each tolerance band being twice the standard deviation of the respective controlled variable” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “b) determining an excitation amplitude of the manipulated variable which was required during step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining desired data) using an instruction or rule (i.e. a requirement during step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of d) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of e) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with a negative fourfold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of f) exciting the manipulated variable in a stepped manner with the positive twofold excitation amplitude and waiting until each of the controlled variables once again have the steady state, an immediate transition to a subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during the steps d) and e)”” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… the process model for the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation is automatically identified via a least error squares method based on the values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables stored in the computer-implemented data memory” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240036533 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0022] and pg. 4, par. [0052]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a technical installation”; “a computer including a processor and memory”; “provide historical measured data from a production operation of the technical installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation”; “sample the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time”; “the step of c) returning the manipulated variable to its operating point and waiting until each controlled variable once again has a steady state”; “the step of g) storing values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables during execution of steps a) to f) in a computer-implemented data memory”; and “… the technical installation is operated and the automatically identified process model is executed to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model”.
The limitations of “a computer including a processor and memory” and “a computer-implemented data memory” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “a technical installation” and “the process installation” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “provide historical measured data from a production operation of the technical installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation” is recited at a high level of generality and represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data is used in the abstract concept of “determine a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from …”. The “provid(ing)” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… sample the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time”; “the step of c) returning the manipulated variable to its operating point and waiting until each controlled variable once again has a steady state”; and “the step of g) storing values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables during execution of steps a) to f) in a computer-implemented data memory” represent mere data gathering of information. The limitations of “sampl(ing)”, “returning”, and “storing” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… the technical installation is operated and the automatically identified process model is executed to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a computer including a processor and memory” and “a computer-implemented data memory”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitations of “a technical installation” and “the process installation” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… sample the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time”; “the step of c) returning the manipulated variable to its operating point and waiting until each controlled variable once again has a steady state”; and “the step of g) storing values of the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables during execution of steps a) to f) in a computer-implemented data memory”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… the technical installation is operated and the automatically identified process model is executed to perform the model-based, predictive multivariable control of the process installation based on the automatically identified process model” represent an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
The limitation of claim 7 merely further details “a technical installation” of claim 6; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in independent claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to modeling a system and system control.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0244575 A1 discloses a robust method of creating process models for use in controller generation, such as in MPC controller generation.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0183311 A1 discloses an apparatus, method, and computer program for automated closed-loop identification of an industrial process in a process control system.
U.S. Patent No. 5,488,561 discloses on-line control of a process is achieved by feedforward computations of manipulated variable setpoints modified during each of frequent optimization cycles by feedback trim determined by actual versus predicted effects of setpoint changes on process controlled variables.
European Patent Publication No. EP 2 825 920 B1 discloses a computer-based apparatus and method for automated data screening and selection in model identification and model adaptation in multivariable process control
European Patent Publication No. EP 4 708 152 A1 discloses a method and apparatus for modelling system behavior of a physical system and to a method and apparatus for controlling the behavior of a physical system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights