DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action per the Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement received on 1 October 2025. Claims 16-22 have been withdrawn. 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 examined 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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites “… considerably constant process parameters or equipment operation parameter can be provided by the equipment …” in line 3-5. The recitation of “can be” does not positively recite the subsequent limitation of “provided” as occurring and has been interpreted as optional.
Claim 24 recites “A computer program, or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program” in lines 1-2. The Examiner has interpreted the claim is directed to different alternative inventions of “A computer program” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” per use of the conjunction “or”.
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: “a scorer module” in claim 1, “means of corresponding data objects” in claim 3, and “a system” in claim 23.
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.
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 Objections
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a chemical product” in line 2 and “the product” in line 3. The claim appears to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “the product” in line 3 should read “the chemical product”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “at least one equipment” in lines 2-3 and claim 1 (line 3), claim 2 (line 2), claim 4 (line 2), claim 5 (lines 2-3), and claim 8 (line 3) recite “the equipment”. The claims appear to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “the equipment” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 should read “the at least one equipment”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “one or more computing units” in line 3 and claim 1 (lines 6 and 8), claim 8 (line 3), claim 24 (line 3) recite “the computing units” in lines 6 and 8. The claims appear to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “the computing units” in claims 1, 8, and 24 should read “the one or more computing units”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “a production process” in line 1 and recites “the production” in line 9. The claim appears to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “the production” in line 9 should read “the production process”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “at least one desired performance parameter” in lines 6-7 and recites “the desired performance parameter” in line 11. The claim appears to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “the desired performance parameter” in line 11 should read “the at least desired performance parameter”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 24 recites “A computer program” in line 1 and recites “the program” in line 2. The claim appears to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “the program” in line 2 should read “the computer program”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “one or more computing units” in line 3 and claim 24 recite “any one or more suitable computing units” in lines 2-3. The claims appear to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “any one or more suitable computing units” in claim 24 should read “the one or more computing units”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “the historical object identifier” in line 13.
Claim 2 recites “the size of a package” in line 2.
Claim 3 recites “the processing of the at least two package” in lines 1-2,
Claim 5 recites “the output of a corresponding sensor” in claim 2.
Claim 10 recites “the corresponding past chemical product” in lines 2-3.
Claim 11 recites “the object identifier” in line 3.
Claim 12 recites “the subset of the … historical data” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The breath of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 with respect to the claim interpretation of “a scorer module” (claim 1) is unknown since the specification as filed does not recite clear structure for the “a scorer module” (claim 1) and “means of corresponding data objects” (claim 3).
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 15, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 23 and 24, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 by virtue of incorporation of “the method of claim 1”.
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 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 limitation “a scorer module” (claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The breath of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 23, and 24 with respect to the claim interpretation of “a scorer module” (claim 1) is unknown since the specification as filed does not recite clear structure for the “a scorer module” (claim 1). The Examiner notes the specification recites “a scorer module” (claim 1) “may be a hardware and/or a software component. For example, the scorer module may be a software code executed via the computing unit 124.” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0192661 A1: pgs. 15-16, par. [0176]); however, the specification does not expressly indicate any particular structure for the “a scorer module” nor an algorithm(s) that a computer uses to perform the claimed functions as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 15, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 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 by virtue of incorporation of “the method of claim 1”.
The term “considerably” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “considerably” 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 “constant process parameters or equipment operation parameters” in claim 2 (lines 2-3) has been rendered indefinite by use of the phrase “considerably”.
Claim 24 recites “A computer program, or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program” in lines 1-2. The claim is rendered indefinite since the claim is directed to two different alternative inventions of “A computer program” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” per use of the conjunction “or”. Suggested claim language: “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions, when executed by the one or more computing units, …”. The Examiner notes the suggested claim language will obviate a current objection of claim 24 as set forth above and the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 24 directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth below.
The term “more suitable” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more suitable” 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 “one or more … computing units” in claim 24 (lines 2-3) has been rendered indefinite by use of the phrase “one or more … computing units”.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se in light of the recitation of “a program … when executed by any one or more suitable computing units”. A claim directed to functional descriptive material, including computer programs, per se, is not patent eligible subject matter. Computer programs may be explicitly claimed as, for example, a series of code or instructions for performing functions or may be implicitly claimed as, for example, a system, a module or an apparatus. Where there is no evidence in the specification that a means which may be interpreted as software, hardware or combinations thereof necessarily includes hardware, it will be interpreted in its broadest reasonable sense as a software means, which is the case here.
Absent of definition, a claim covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification or lack thereof, and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
It should be noted that functional descriptive material claimed in combination with an appropriate computer readable medium to enable the functionality to be realized is patent eligible subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that Applicants may have claims directed to computer readable mediums that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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 of the chemical product; wherein the control settings are determined … (by selecting) at least one historical object identifier … based upon the desired performance parameter and a determined performance parameter, wherein the 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 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 of the chemical product; wherein the control settings are determined … (by selecting) at least one historical object identifier … based upon the desired performance parameter and a determined performance parameter, wherein the 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 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. a desired performance parameter and a 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 product being manufactured by processing, via the equipment, at least one input material using the production process”; and “providing, at any of the computing units, at least one desired performance parameter related to the chemical product”.
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 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 limitation of “… the product being manufactured by processing, via the equipment, at least one input material using the production process” is a recitation 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 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 limitation of “… the product being manufactured by processing, via the equipment, at least one input material using the production process” represents 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:
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 equipment”.
The limitation of “… a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via the 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 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 the output of a corresponding sensor being arranged at each of an equipment unit of the equipment”.
The limitation of “the trigger signal is provided in response to the output of a corresponding sensor being arranged at each of an equipment unit of the 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 the output of a corresponding sensor being arranged at each of an equipment unit of the 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 computing units, real-time process data from the 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 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 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 the corresponding past chemical product”.
The limitation of “… the determined performance parameter is determined via analysis of the 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 object identifier, the determined performance parameter”.
The limitation of “… appending, to the 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 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 historical data”.
The limitation of “… the determined performance parameter is computed based on the subset of the real-time process data and 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 15, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being by U.S. Patent Publication No. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0026440 A1 (hereinafter Schneider).
As per claim 1, Schneider discloses a method for improving a production process for manufacturing a chemical product (pg. 11, par. [0115]; i.e. carbonyl iron powder (CIP)) at an industrial plant (pg. 2, par. [0015] and pg. 10, par. [0110]; i.e. a chemical production plant), the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment and one or more computing units (pg. 2, par. [0013] and [0017] and pg. 10, par. [0110]), and the product being manufactured by processing, via the equipment, at least one input material using the production process (pg. 11, par. [0115]), wherein the method comprises:
providing, at any of the computing units (pg. 2, par. [0013]), at least one desired performance parameter related to the chemical product (pg. 4, par. [0033] and [0034], pg. 7, par. [0051], and pg. 11, par. [0121]; i.e. input data of a quality criterion provided by a user);
determining, via any of the computing units (pg. 2, par. [0013]), a set of control settings for controlling the production of the chemical product (pg. 7, par. [0048], pg. 12, par. [0123] and [0124] and pg. 13, par. [0133]; i.e. [0133]: “The production plant 110 may be controlled according to the determined operating conditions.”);
wherein the control settings are determined using a scorer module (Fig. 3, element 136; i.e. a trained model comprising of a plurality of submodels) configured to select at least one historical object identifier from a memory storage (pg. 2, par. [0013]; i.e. a data storage device) based upon the desired performance parameter and a determined performance parameter (pgs. 5-6, par. [0039], pg. 7, par. [0052], pg. 12, par. [0125] and [0128], and pg. 13, par. [0132]; i.e. [0125]: “The trained model 136 may be trained with historical data comprising one or more of quality criteria of produced powder associated with data from process control, physical reactor design, plant layout and production runs.” and [0132]: “The controlling system 156 comprises at least one prediction unit 160 configured for determining operating conditions for operating the production plant 110 by applying at least one trained model 136 on the input data.”),
wherein the 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 (pgs. 5-6, par. [0039], pg. 7, par. [0052] and pg. 12, par. [0128]);
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 (pgs. 5-6, par. [0039], pg. 7, par. [0052] and pg. 12, par. [0128]).
As per claim 2, Schneider discloses the input material (Fig. 2A, element 128; i.e. raw-CIP) for the processing via the equipment is divided into at least two packages wherein the size of a package is fixed or is determined based on an input material weight or amount, for which considerably constant process parameters or equipment operation parameters can be provided by the equipment (pg. 11, par. [0116]; i.e. “… the raw-CIP 128 may be fed into containers and may be processed afterwards in differing batch processes 114 according to the requirements of the desired and/or planned and/or wanted finished product. The production plant 110 may be configured for producing different kind of finished CIP, so-called grades. The grades may be produced on multiple production lines 116.”).
As per claim 3, Schneider discloses the processing of the at least two packages is managed by means of corresponding data objects, each of which at least including an historical object identifier (pg. 11, par. [0116] and pg. 12, par. [0128]; i.e. [0116]: “… the raw-CIP 128 may be fed into containers and may be processed afterwards in differing batch processes 114 according to the requirements of the desired and/or planned and/or wanted finished product. The production plant 110 may be configured for producing different kind of finished CIP, so-called grades. The grades may be produced on multiple production lines 116.” and [0128]: “The trained model 136 may comprise a plurality of sub-models, such as for at least one of the production steps and/or for at least one of the process steps and/or for at least one production line 116, which are white-box-models or either hybrid models or pure data-driven models. Each sub-model may be either responsible for predicting operating conditions or for providing input to other sub-models that predict the operating conditions.”).
As per claim 7 Schneider discloses 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 (pg. 4, par. [0033] and [0034]; i.e. [0033]: “The quality criterion may be an application dependent quality criterion. The quality criterion may comprise one or more of particle size distribution, morphology, degree of agglomeration, surface chemistry, and phase composition. … Some of the input parameters may be provided by the customer. Others may be determined based on customer input.”) .
As per claim 10, Schneider discloses the determined performance parameter is determined via analysis of the corresponding past chemical product (pg. 12, par. [0125]; i.e. “The trained model 136 is at least partially data-driven by being trained on sensor data from historical production runs. Specifically, the data driven model is derived from analysis of experimental data.”).
As per claim 15, Schneider discloses the memory storage (pg. 2, par. [0013]; i.e. a data storage device) 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 (pg. 10, par. [0110] and [0112], pgs. 11-13, par. [0122], [0125] and [0130]; i.e. [0122]: “The pre-defined layout parameters may be retrieved from at least one database via the communication interface. … In particular, the database may contain an arbitrary collection of information.”; [0125]: “The trained model 136 may be trained with historical data comprising one or more of quality criteria of produced powder associated with data from process control, physical reactor design, plant layout and production runs.” and [0130]: “… the process chain 112 may comprise arbitrary combinations of continuous and batch processes.”.
As per claim 23, Schneider discloses a system for improving a production process (Fig. 2A, element 156; i.e. controlling system), wherein the system (pg. 8, par. [0059], pgs. 9-10, par. [0098], pg. 13, par. [0132]) is configured to perform the method of claim 1 (i.e. “… perform the method of claim 1” stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 by virtue of its incorporation of “the method of claim 1”).
As per claim 24, Schneider discloses a computer program (pg. 7, par. [0050]), or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing the program, comprising instructions which, when executed by any one or more suitable computing units (pg. 7, par. [0055]), cause the computing units to carry out the method of claim 1 (i.e. “… carry out the method of claim 1” stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 by virtue of its incorporation of “the method of claim 1”)..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0101336 A1 (hereinafter Victor).
As per claim 4, Schneider does not expressly teach a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via the equipment.
However Victor, in an analogous art of a managing a chemical plant (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 7, par. [0065]), teaches the missing limitation of a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via equipment (pg. 11, par. [0133], pg. 12, par. [0137] and pg. 14, par. [0151]; i.e. [0133]: “The sensors be positioned on various components in the plant and may communicate wirelessly or wired with one or more platforms illustrated in FIG. 17A.”, [0137]: “One or more sensors may be programmed to set off an alarm or alert. For example, if an actuator fails, sensor data may be used to automatically trigger an alarm or alert (e.g., an audible alarm or alert, a visual alarm or alert).”, and [0151]: “The memory 1062 may include a database 1064 for storing data records of various values collected from one or more sources. In addition, a data collection module 1066 may be stored in the memory 1062 and assist the processor 1060 in the data collection platform 1002 in communicating with, via the communications interface 1068, one or more sensor, measurement, and data capture systems, and processing the data received from these sources.”) for the purpose of providing alarms or alerts (pg. 12, par. [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schneider to include the addition of the limitation of a data object is generated in response to a trigger signal being provided via equipment to advantageously improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (Victor: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 5, Schneider does not expressly teach the trigger signal is provided in response to the output of a corresponding sensor being arranged at each of an equipment unit of the equipment.
However Victor, in an analogous art of a managing a chemical plant (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 7, par. [0065]), teaches the missing 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 equipment (pg. 11, par. [0133] and pg. 12, par. [0137]; i.e. [0133]: “The sensors be positioned on various components in the plant and may communicate wirelessly or wired with one or more platforms illustrated in FIG. 17A.” and [0137]: “One or more sensors may be programmed to set off an alarm or alert. For example, if an actuator fails, sensor data may be used to automatically trigger an alarm or alert (e.g., an audible alarm or alert, a visual alarm or alert).”) for the purpose of providing alarms or alerts (pg. 12, par. [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schneider to include the addition of 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 equipment to advantageously improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (Victor: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 8, Schneider teaches receiving, at any of the computing units, real-time process data from the equipment (pg. 4, par. [0035] and pgs. 11-12, par. [0122]; i.e. [0122]: “The production plant layout data may comprise real time data. The real time data may comprise information about a current state of the production plant.”); wherein the real-time process data comprises real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions (pg. 4, par. [0035]; i.e. “The term “information about a current state” may refer to arbitrary information relating to an operation status, e.g. obtained via sensor data from one or more sensors of the production plant.”), wherein the real-time process data being indicative of the process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions that the input material is processed under (pg. 4, par. [0033] and [0034]; i.e. [0033]: “The quality criterion may be an application dependent quality criterion. The quality criterion may comprise one or more of particle size distribution, morphology, degree of agglomeration, surface chemistry, and phase composition. … Some of the input parameters may be provided by the customer. Others may be determined based on customer input.”).
Schneider does not expressly teach determining, via any of the computing units, 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.
However Victor, in an analogous art of a managing a chemical plant (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 7, par. [0065]), teaches the missing limitation of determining, via any computing units, a subset of process data; the subset of the process data being indicative of process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions (pgs. 11-12, par. [0134] and [0136]; i.e. “Moreover, in such an embodiment, the enhanced sensor system may measure values common to a sensor, but may also filter the measurements such just those values that are statistically relevant or of-interest to the computing system environment are transmitted by the enhanced sensor system. As a result, the enhanced sensor system may include a processor (or other circuitry that enables execution of computer instructions) and a memory to store those instructions and/or filtered data values.”) for the purpose of collecting data that is statistically relevant of interest (pgs. 11-12, par. [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schneider to include the addition of the limitation of determining, via any computing units, a subset of process data; the subset of the process data being indicative of process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions to advantageously improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (Victor: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 11, Schneider teaches appending, to the object identifier, the determined performance parameter (pgs. 5-6, par. [0039], pg. 7, par. [0052], pg. 12, par. [0125] and [0128], and pg. 13, par. [0132]; i.e. [0125]: “The trained model 136 may be trained with historical data comprising one or more of quality criteria of produced powder associated with data from process control, physical reactor design, plant layout and production runs.” and [0132]: “The controlling system 156 comprises at least one prediction unit 160 configured for determining operating conditions for operating the production plant 110 by applying at least one trained model 136 on the input data.”).
As per claim 12, Schneider teaches the determined performance parameter is computed based on the real-time process data and historical data (pgs. 4-6, par. [0035] and [0039]; i.e. [0035]: “The input data comprises the production plant layout data. …The production plant layout data may comprise real time data. The real time data may comprise information about a current state of the production plant.” and [0039]: “The trained model may be trained with historical data comprising one or more of quality criteria of produced powder associated with data from process control, physical reactor design, plant layout and production runs.”).
Schneider does not expressly teach the subset of the real-time process data.
However Victor, in an analogous art of a managing a chemical plant (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 7, par. [0065]), teaches the missing limitation of the subset of the process data (pgs. 11-12, par. [0134] and [0136]; i.e. “Moreover, in such an embodiment, the enhanced sensor system may measure values common to a sensor, but may also filter the measurements such just those values that are statistically relevant or of-interest to the computing system environment are transmitted by the enhanced sensor system. As a result, the enhanced sensor system may include a processor (or other circuitry that enables execution of computer instructions) and a memory to store those instructions and/or filtered data values.”) for the purpose of collecting data that is statistically relevant of interest (pgs. 11-12, par. [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schneider to include the addition of the limitation of the subset of the process data to advantageously improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (Victor: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
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. 2008/0082294 A1 discloses a system and method for detecting abnormal situations associated with a stirred vessel in a process plant receives statistical data associated with a pressure within the stirred vessel.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0198136 A1 discloses production control of chemical products in chemical plants based on machine learning algorithms.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0149384 A1 discloses systems and methods for monitoring components of a manufacturing application system (e.g., MES or MOM) with respect to application-specific metrics.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0027759 A1 discloses a method for improving prediction relating to a production of a polymeric product.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0350395 A1 discloses a method for controlling a production process in a manufacture of a chemical product
U.S. Patent No. 5,638,492 discloses an information processing apparatus such as a controller and a pattern recognition apparatus for determining output data from input data.
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