Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “high-level optimizer module” “low-level simulation module” and “aggregator module” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“high-level optimizer module” -spec pg. 5 - course time scale, binary decision functions, fewer degrees of freedom, “objective function subject to constraints”
“low-level simulation module” - spec pg. 5 fine grained time scale, non-linear modeling
“aggregator module” - spec. pg. 5 calculates high level model parameters based on low level material flow data F, equations on pg. 6.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 15 and 16 are directed towards software per se (See MPEP 2106.03 I). Claims 17-18 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “computer-readable storage medium” encompasses transitory signals (See MPEP 2106.03 II).
Claims 1-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim recites:
1. (Previously Presented) A method of material flow optimization in an industrial process by using an integrated optimizing system,the integrated optimizing system comprising:
(1)a high-level optimizer module describing the material flow by coarse high-level process parameters (x) and including an optimization program for the high-level process parameters (x), the optimization program being dependent on high-level model parameters (A, b, c) and including an objective function subject to constraints;
(2)a low-level simulation module for simulating the material flow, the low-level simulation module including a low-level simulation function adapted for obtaining detailed low-level material flow data (F) based on the high-level process parameters (x); and
(3)an aggregator module including an aggregator function adapted for calculating the high-level model parameters (A, b, c) based on the low-level material flow data (F),
(4)the method including approaching an optimum value of the objective function by iteratively modifying the high-level process parameters (x), wherein an iteration includes:
(5)a) carrying out, by the low-level simulation module, a low-level simulation thereby obtaining the detailed low-level material flow data (F);
(6)b) aggregating, by the aggregator module, the low-level material flow data (F) thereby calculating, from the low-level material flow data (F), aggregated high-level model parameters (fA, fb, fc); and
(7)c) inputting the aggregated high-level model parameters (fA, fb, f) into the optimization program.
Step 2A prong one:
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea of mental processes, as the various limitations are recited at a very high level of generality and but for the execution on a computer, can be accomplished by merely collecting data and performing mathematical operations. The claims recite two modules, one for optimizing at a high level and one for simulating at a low level. The aggregator module performs a mathematical operation, and is thus categorized in the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The claim further recites deriving data from the low level simulations(5) and calculating(6) the parameters for the optimization module (7). The claim limitations are all directed to mathematical operations or computing model parameters and outputs, without specifying any particular technological problem solved or improvement. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong two
The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite taking the results of the optimization/simulation to actually improve the real world material flow process, merely the computation. Claim 11 presents the suggested actions via a user interface to a user, however, the execution is not recited (which would be a practical step or application.) Thus the abstract idea is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to more than than “apply it” on a computer.
Step 2B -search for inventive concept
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite the improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or in this case the functioning of the material flow conveyors, merely the computation of optimized settings. Because the claims generally link the abstract idea exception to the field of use, there is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. The limitations identified in step 2A prong one although considered individually and in ordered combination, are still abstract because they recite mathematical steps along with simulating and optimizing steps on a computer, all which could be accomplished via mental processes or pen and paper. The dependent claims do not appear to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 2 merely recites an iterative step, doing more math and adding a penalty term for the objective function. Claim 3 recites detail as to the model in that it is a non-linear model, which merely restricts the model to a non-linear function for the computations. Claim 4 further recites mapping the data into the model parameters and thus represents mere data transfer step. Claim 5 similar to claim 2 recites that the mathematical steps are done iteratively along with a penalty term for the objective function. Adding more mathematical computations does not amount to significantly more than the original math. Claim 6 merely recites a matrix multiplication step, again more math. Claim 7 recites that the aggregated high level model parameters obtained in step b are used in the optimization program. Again, this is mere data transfer. Claim 8 further recites generation of more synthetic data as a result of the modeling. Again, this is more mathematical computation on a computer. Claim 9 further recites data transfer from one module to another. Claim 10 appears to recite more mathematical operators for the optimizing function. Claim 11 presents the results of the modeling/optimizing to a user via a user interface, however, the results are not recited as actually being used to improve the material flow process. Merely suggesting possibly better parameters to a user does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because if the parameters are never used than the computer has merely been used as a tool for computation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights