DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 24 July 2024. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 24 have been amended. Claims 6, 9, 13, 14, and 25 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 15-24 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 have been examiner on their merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-8, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to objected claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claims amendments filed on 24 July 2026. The objections of claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 8, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 2 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 24 July 2026. The rejections of claims 2 and 24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to software per se have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 24 July 2026. The rejection of claim 24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 9-10, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
Regarding the rejection alleging the claims are directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 has been amended to recite that "the production process is controllable, for producing the chemical product, via the set of control settings." Accordingly, the claimed method is transformed into a practical application by using the determined set of control settings to control the production process for producing a physical chemical product at the industrial plant. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 8 – pg. 10, paragraph 1).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the claim limitation of "the production process is controllable, for producing the chemical product, via the set of control settings" was newly presented in the claim amendment filed on 24 July 2026, and is currently treated in step 2A, prong two and 2B, prong two of the subject eligibility requirement as set forth below. Further, the examiner notes the applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the newly presented limitation is more than a mere recitation the words “apply it” (or an equivalent; see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) and 2106.05(f)). Hence, the limitation of “the production process is controllable, for producing the chemical product, via the set of control settings" neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract for the rational set forth below.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
Thus, the claims are directed to a specific, technological improvement in the control of a chemical production process, rather than to an abstract idea and the additional elements impose meaningful limits on any alleged judicial exception. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 8 – pg. 10, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully notes the applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement (i.e. “Thus, the claims are directed to a specific, technological improvement in the control of a chemical production process, rather than to an abstract idea and the additional elements impose meaningful limits on any alleged judicial exception.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to what improvement (i.e. enhancement) is made to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)) by the previously presented and newly presented elements. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two of the subject matter eligibility requirement) nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-12, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-3, 7, 10, 15, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 24 July 2026. The rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 10, 15, 23, and 24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, pg. 12, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 24 July 2026. The rejections of claims 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 have been withdrawn.
Claim 1 is objected to and claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 stand objected to under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determined performance parameter" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested claim language: “a determined performance parameter”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue of “wherein the at least one historical object identifier has appended to it historical process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more chemical products …” in lines 12-15. Suggested claim language: “wherein the at least one historical object identifier has appended to respective historical process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more chemical products …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical (i.e. an incorrect name for the acronym of GUID) and spacing (i.e. an extra space) issues of “… a unique identifier (GUID) …” in lines 15-16. Suggested claim language: “… a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID); and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the at least one historical object identifier has appended to it historical process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more chemical products, wherein the at least one historical object identifier comprises a unique identifier (GUID) that traceably links the historical process parameters or operational settings to a specific past chemical product”. Claim 1 is unclear per the recitations of an initial conjunction of “and/or” in the limitation of “historical process parameters and/or operational settings” and subsequent conjunction of “or” in the limitation of “the historical process parameters or operational settings”). The claim is not clear as to how the at least one historical object identifier links historical process parameters and operational settings (i.e. historical process parameters, operational parameters, or both historical process parameters and operational parameters); hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising of a combination of steps, therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determining … a set of control settings for controlling the production process of the chemical product; wherein the control settings are determined … (by selecting) at least one historical object identifier … based upon a comparison between the at least one desired performance parameter and the determined performance parameter, wherein the at least one historical object identifier has appended to it historical process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more chemical products; wherein the at least one historical object identifier comprises a unique identifier (GUID) that traceably links the historical process parameters or operational settings to a specific past chemical product; wherein the set of control settings being determined using the historical process parameters and/or the operational settings, and the set of control settings being usable for manufacturing the chemical product at the industrial plant”.
The limitation of “determining … a set of control settings for controlling the production process of the chemical product; wherein the control settings are determined … (by selecting) at least one historical object identifier … based upon a comparison between the at least one desired performance parameter and the determined performance parameter, wherein the at least one historical object identifier has appended to it historical process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more chemical products; wherein the at least one historical object identifier comprises a unique identifier (GUID) that traceably links the historical process parameters or operational settings to a specific past chemical product; wherein the set of control settings being determined using the historical process parameters and/or the operational settings, and the set of control settings being usable for manufacturing the chemical product at the industrial plant”, 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 a set of control settings by selecting at least one historical object identifier) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… based upon a comparison between the at least one desired performance parameter and the determined performance parameter …”), 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.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… a production process for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment and one or more computing units, and the chemical product being manufactured by processing, via the at least one equipment, at least one input material using the production process”; “providing, at any of the one or more computing units, at least one desired performance parameter related to the chemical product”; and “… the production process is controllable, for producing the chemical product, via the set of control settings".
The limitations of “one or more computing units” and “a memory storage” 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 limitation of “… a production process for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment …” 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, at any of the one or more computing units, at least one desired performance parameter related to the chemical product” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “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 “… the chemical product being manufactured by processing, via the at least one equipment, at least one input material using the production process” and “… the production process is controllable, for producing the chemical product, via the set of control settings" 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 “one or more computing units” and “a memory storage”, 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 limitation of “… a production process for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment …” 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 limitation of “providing, at any of the one or more computing units, at least one desired performance parameter related to the chemical product”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is 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 chemical product being manufactured by processing, via the at least one equipment, at least one input material using the production process” and “… the production process is controllable, for producing the chemical product, via the set of control settings" represent equivalent recitations 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:
The limitation of claim 2 merely further details “the input material for processing” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 3:
The limitation of claim 3 merely further details the input material for processing two packages of claim 2; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claims 1 and 2.
Claim 4
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via the at least one equipment”.
The limitation of “… a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via the at least one equipment” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “generat(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)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via the at least one equipment”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is 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”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the trigger signal is provided in response to an output of a corresponding sensor being arranged at each of an equipment unit of the at least one equipment”.
The limitation of “the trigger signal is provided in response to an output of a corresponding sensor being arranged at each of an equipment unit of the at least one equipment” represents the mere output of data. 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 outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 “the trigger signal is provided in response to an output of a corresponding sensor being arranged at each of an equipment unit of the at least one equipment”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… providing, via an interface, an upstream object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more properties of the input material”.
The limitation of “an interface” 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 “… providing, … , an upstream object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more properties of the input material” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “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)).
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 “an interface”, 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 limitation of “… providing, … , an upstream object identifier comprising input material data; wherein the input material data is indicative of one or more properties of the input material”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is 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”.
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 8:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determining, … , a subset of the real-time process data; the subset of the real-time process data being indicative of the process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the input material is processed under”.
The limitation of “determining, … , a subset of the real-time process data; the subset of the real-time process data being indicative of the process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the input material is processed under”, 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, … , a subset of the real-time process data …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… indicative of the process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the input material is processed under”), 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.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “receiving, at any of the one or more computing units, real-time process data from the at least one equipment; wherein the real-time process data comprises real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions”; and “any of the computing units”.
The limitation of “any of the one or more computing units” 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 “receiving, …, real-time process data from the equipment; wherein the real-time process data comprises real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiving” 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)).
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 “any of the one or more computing units”, 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 limitation of “receiving, …, real-time process data from the equipment; wherein the real-time process data comprises real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is 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”.
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 10:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the determined performance parameter is determined via analysis of a corresponding past chemical product”.
The limitation of “… the determined performance parameter is determined via analysis of a corresponding past chemical product”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “analysis” in the context of the claim encompasses an examination of data to determine additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… appending, to the upstream object identifier, the determined performance parameter”.
The limitation of “… appending, to the upstream object identifier, the determined performance parameter” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “appending” 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)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 “… appending, to the upstream object identifier, the determined performance parameter”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is 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”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the determined performance parameter is computed based on the subset of the real-time process data and based on historical data”.
The limitation of “… the determined performance parameter is computed based on the subset of the real-time process data and based on historical data” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0192661 A1: pg. 3, par. [0044] and pg. 10, par. [0112]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s) (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.”).
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 15:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the memory storage comprises a plurality of historical object identifiers, each historical object identifier being related to a corresponding historical chemical product, wherein at least some of the historical chemical products have been produced using randomized operational settings with respect to each other”.
The limitation of “… the memory storage … ” 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 “… the memory storage comprises a plurality of historical object identifiers, each historical object identifier being related to a corresponding historical chemical product, wherein at least some of the historical chemical products have been produced using randomized operational settings with respect to each other” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “comprises” 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)).
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 “… the memory storage … ”, 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 limitation of “… the memory storage comprises a plurality of historical object identifiers, each historical object identifier being related to a corresponding historical chemical product, wherein at least some of the historical chemical products have been produced using randomized operational settings with respect to each other”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is 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”.
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 23:
Claim 1 represents an equivalent system (i.e. device) claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 24:
Claim 1 represents an equivalent a non-transitory computer readable medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
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 monitoring systems and productions system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0277429 A1 discloses a system and method that monitors and/or diagnoses an operation of a production line of an industrial plant which is controlled by an automation system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0143569 A1 discloses systems and methods for determining an operating condition of a chemical production plant including at least one catalytic reactor.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0219891 A1 discloses a method for modifying a production process for a product wherein the production process can be qualified by means of at least one quality parameter for the product and includes a plurality of individual processes, in at least some of which no control is used.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0155853 A1 discloses a method providing a process parameter model for parameterizing one or more process steps of a production process for manufacturing a component includes providing a quality model for determining a quality.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
