DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the original application filed on 8/25/2023 and the Remarks filed on 7/31/2026. Acknowledgment is made with respect to a claim of priority to Provisional Application 63/524,454 filed on 6/30/2023.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a device; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
estimate a current internal state of the digital twin using a neural network trained to estimate a sequence of internal states of the digital twin mapping the sequence of control inputs to the sequence of outputs: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of estimating a current internal state of a digital twin using a neural network, which is performed by mathematical operations as evidenced by paragraphs [0064] and [0067-0070] and equations 1b-4c of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “wherein the system is communicatively coupled to a digital twin configured to concurrently simulate the operation of the system, and wherein the system and the digital twin operate concurrently, the device comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to”, “collect a sequence of control inputs for controlling the system to change states of the system according to the task”, “collect a sequence of outputs of the system caused by the corresponding sequence of control inputs”, and “perform the task using the current internal state of the digital twin”.
The additional elements of “the device comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to” amount to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional element of “perform the task using the current internal state of the digital twin” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how an unspecified task is performed using an internal state of a digital twin. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “collect a sequence of control inputs for controlling the system to change states of the system according to the task” and “collect a sequence of outputs of the system caused by the corresponding sequence of control inputs” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “wherein the system is communicatively coupled to a digital twin configured to concurrently simulate the operation of the system” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the device comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to” amount to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional element of “perform the task using the current internal state of the digital twin” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how an unspecified task is performed using an internal state of a digital twin. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “collect a sequence of control inputs for controlling the system to change states of the system according to the task” and “collect a sequence of outputs of the system caused by the corresponding sequence of control inputs” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional element of “wherein the system is communicatively coupled to a digital twin configured to concurrently simulate the operation of the system” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determine, based on the current internal state of the digital twin, a current control input in the sequence of control inputs for controlling the system: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of determining a control input for controlling a system, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “a feedback controller configured to” amounts to a generic computer component used as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional element of “control the system based on the determined control input to perform the task” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the system is broadly controlled based on a determined input. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “concurrently control, based on the current control input, the system to update the states of the system and the digital twin to update the internal states of the digital twin” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the system is broadly controlled to update staters. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the feedback controller includes one or a combination of a Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller, an extremum-seeking control, and a Model Predictive Control (MPC)” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
estimate, online, the internal states of the digital twin based on measured data of the system and one or more intrinsic properties of the system: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of estimating a current internal state of a digital twin using a neural network, which is performed by mathematical operations as evidenced by paragraphs [0064] and ]0067-0070] and equations 1b-4c of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the neural network is trained with supervised learning based on training data including a training sequence of internal states of the digital twin and a training sequence of corresponding outputs of the digital twin” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the neural network is an autoencoder having latent space adapted for dynamic propagation of encodings of the internal states of the digital twin into decodings indicative of a combination of the internal states of the digital twin and the outputs of the system” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
solve an optimization problem that produces a sequence of the internal states within a prediction horizon that is transformed by the autoencoder to match the sequence of outputs of the system: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of solving an optimization problem, which is performed by mathematical operations as evidenced by paragraphs [0064] and [0067-0070] and equations 1b-4c of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
an encoder subnetwork configured to encode a current input internal state into latent space to produce a current encoding of the internal state in the latent space; a latent subnetwork configured to propagate the current encoding of the internal state in the latent space forward in time to produce a next encoding of the internal state in the latent space; a first decoder subnetwork configured to decode a next internal state of the digital twin from the next encoding of the internal state in the latent space; and a second decoder subnetwork configured to decode a current output of the system from the current encoding of the internal state in the latent space: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mathematical concepts of encoding and decoding state information, which are performed by mathematical operations as evidenced by paragraphs [0064] and [0067-0070] and equations 1b-4c of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 10
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “control the system using a linear control law including a control matrix formed by values of the parameters of the latent subnetwork” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the system is broadly controlled using a linear law. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the latent subnetwork is trained to perform linear propagation of the encodings of the internal state” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the generic latent subnetwork is broadly trained to perform propagation. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 12
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the autoencoder is trained to minimize a loss function of a difference of the combination of the internal states of the digital twin and the outputs of the digital twin over a prediction horizon” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the generic autoencoder is broadly trained to minimize a loss function. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 13
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determine, based on the current internal state of the digital twin, a current control input to the vapor compression system that changes a current state of the vapor compression system to a target state: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of determining a control input to change a state to a target state, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “a feedback controller configured to” amounts to a generic computer component used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “wherein the system is a vapor compression system” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 14
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determine, based on the current internal state of the digital twin, a current control input to the robotic manipulator that changes a current state of the robotic manipulator to a target state: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of determining a control input to change a state to a target state, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “a feedback controller configured to” amounts to a generic computer component used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “wherein the system is a robotic manipulator” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 15-19
Claims 15-19 recite a method (step 1: a process) to perform the steps of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 12, respectively, without any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and are thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 12, respectively.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (step 1: a manufacture) using a processor and program to perform the steps of claim 1, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and is thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 7/31/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 1 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “The Claimed Invention is Directed to a New Control Architecture Rather than Mathematical Computation … The neural network is therefore not the invention. It is merely the technological mechanism that enables the new control architecture … The Claimed Elements Form a Single Integrated Technological Solution … None of these limitations performs the claimed invention independently. Rather, each limitation contributes to a single integrated technological solution …. The specification identifies a specific technological problem existing in conventional control systems … the claimed invention improves digital-twin-enabled control technology itself … Because the claims recite this integrated technological architecture, they cannot reasonably be characterized as being directed merely to mathematical concepts or mental processes. At most, any mathematical operations performed by the neural network are integrated into the claimed technological solution and are therefore applied in a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has made various assertions about technical improvements and how the claims are not directed towards mathematical concepts or mental processes without providing any evidence in the claim language or originally filed specification to support these assertions. The claims are directed towards abstract ideas without additional elements that provide a technical improvement, integrate the abstract ideas of the claims into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claims. Applicant has not identified any portions of the originally filed specification that reflect a technical improvement or claim language that reflects a potential technical improvement discussed in the specification. Applicant rather asserts that the claims are not directed towards abstract ideas, integrate abstract ideas into practical applications, and provide significantly more than abstract ideas without any evidence.
Applicant next argues “The Office Action Incorrectly Characterizes the Claimed Neural Network as the Claimed Invention … The mathematical computations therefore constitute an enabling technological mechanism integrated into a larger control architecture rather than an abstract idea performed for its own sake”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is unclear as to what claim language Applicant refers to with these assertions. The claims recite abstract ideas as detailed in the 101 rejection above.
Applicant next argues “Collecting Inputs and Outputs Is Not Mere Data Gathering … The collected inputs and outputs are not gathered merely for presentation or storage. They constitute the observational data required to reconstruct the hidden digital-twin state upon which subsequent feedback control depends”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has again made an assertion unsupported by evidence. The additional elements “collect a sequence of control inputs for controlling the system to change states of the system according to the task” and “collect a sequence of outputs of the system caused by the corresponding sequence of control inputs” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Applicant has failed to provide any evidence as to why these additional elements of the independent claims are not insignificant extra-solution activities and are not well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Applicant next argues “Performing the Task Using the Current Internal State Is Not a Desired Result … The specification explains precisely how the reconstructed state is generated, maintained, propagated, and supplied to the feedback controller through the disclosed neural-network architecture, autoencoder, latent-state propagation, optimization framework, and controller implementations. The claims therefore recite a specific technological mechanism rather than merely stating a desired outcome”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is uncertain where these alleged details are reflected in the claim language. The additional element of “perform the task using the current internal state of the digital twin” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how an unspecified task is performed using an internal state of a digital twin. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Applicant last argues “The Claims Are Not Directed to Mental Processes … The claims require reconstructing hidden internal states of a concurrently operating digital twin using a trained neural network and employing those reconstructed states in real-time control of a physical system. Such operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind and are inseparable from the claimed technological control architecture”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has again made an assertion unsupported by evidence. Claim 1, for example, recites the limitation estimate a current internal state of the digital twin using a neural network trained to estimate a sequence of internal states of the digital twin mapping the sequence of control inputs to the sequence of outputs. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of estimating a current internal state of a digital twin using a neural network, which is performed by mathematical operations as evidenced by paragraphs [0064] and [0067-0070] and equations 1b-4c of the originally filed specification. Applicant has failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
Examiner notes that MPEP $2106.07 (h) recites:
After examiners identify and explain in the record the reasons why a claim is directed to an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature without significantly more, then the burden shifts to the applicant to either amend the claim or make a showing of why the claim is eligible for patent protection. See MPEP $2106.07 (h).
The Examiner has already explained in the record the reasons why the claim recites an abstract idea and, as such, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to make a showing of why the claim does not.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection, and the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on 571-270-3169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights