DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 24 December 2025. Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 have been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claims 10 and 11 have been newly added. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 8, filed 24 December 2025, with respect to objected claims 2-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 24 December 2025. The objections of claims 2-6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 8-12, filed 24 December 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
In the instant case, ¶ [0004] of the instant specification identifies a technical problem in the field of control systems and methods, namely that it is difficult to bring the output value of a control target closer to an envisaged value without the need to analyze the state of the control target. Furthermore, ¶¶ [0120]-[0130] and [0134] of this Application describe steps for implementing a technical improvement to the field of control systems and methods. For example, ¶ [0128] explains that by applying the finite impulse response (FIR) filter to the time- series data of input values of the control target, the disclosed control device may correct the input values and, thereby, realize the stated technical improvement of bringing output values of the control target closer to the envisaged output values.
Thus, Applicant asserts that claim 1 encompasses a technical improvement to the field of control systems and methods, at least because claim 1 recites "correcting the input value [by] applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value " and "calculate, based on the corrected input value and the corrected output value, an input value to the control target in order to bring the output value of the control target closer to an envisaged value". (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 4 - pg. 10, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… thereby, realize the stated technical improvement of bringing output values of the control target closer to the envisaged output values.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously and newly presented additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a); i.e. The Applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to how/why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to determining an input value to modify an output value of a control target to approach an envisaged value as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claim 8). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
Furthermore, by reciting "control the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target", Applicant submits that this feature more clearly integrates the alleged exception into a practical application that realizes the technical improvement discussed above. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the limitation of "control the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target" is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The Applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement asserting the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as well as, a mere recitation of a claim limitation, without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the previously presented limitation is more than transmitting data which integrates abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Thus, as evidenced by the above-cited portions of Applicant's specification, the device of claim 1 is not merely a generic computer, but a dedicated device comprising a particular assembly of distinct components configured to perform a specific set of operations which, together, realize a substantial technical improvement to the functioning of the device. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05 recites:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The Applicant has only presented a broad and conclusionary statement of “a dedicated device comprising a particular assembly of distinct components configured to perform a specific set of operations which, together, realize a substantial technical improvement to the functioning of the device.” without stating how the claimed limitations entail a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that improves the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits that provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
Further still, it is undeniable that claim 1 could not possibly be performed by the human mind alone, if only because a human mind cannot practically perform the recited FIR filter. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 4)
The Examiner agrees.
The Examiner notes the limitation of “the correcting the input value comprises applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value” was newly presented in the Amendment After Non-Final received on 24 December 2025 by the Office, and has been addressed as set forth in the Office Action below in the current rejection of claim 1, and similarly in claims 8 and 9, under 35 U.S.C. 101. Further, the Applicant has not set forth any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the newly presented limitation of “… the correcting the input value comprises applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value” as drafted, is not a process under its broadest reasonable interpretation that covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s). Hence, the newly presented limitation is directed to an abstract idea as set forth below in current rejections of claim1, and similarly of claims 8 and 9, under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
As previously detailed above, ¶ [0004] of the instant specification describe the technical problem in the related art, namely that it is difficult to bring the output value of the control target closer to the envisaged value without the need to analyze the state of the control target.
Furthermore, Applicant has amended claim 1 to more clearly reflect the disclosed technical solution. For example, the amended claim recites "correcting the input value [by] applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value " and "calculate, based on the corrected input value and the corrected output value, an input value to the control target in order to bring the output value of the control target closer to an envisaged value".
Thus, claim 1 more clearly recites the technical solution described in the specification to the technical problem described in the specification. In other words, the technical solution is both described and claimed such that amended claim 1, as a whole, recites significantly more than any abstract idea. (see Remarks, pg. 11, lines 4-6)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… bring the output value of the control target closer to the envisaged value without the need to analyze the state of the control target”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously and newly presented additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II); i.e. The Applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to how/why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to determining an input value to modify an output value of a control target to approach an envisaged value as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claim 8). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument,
Claim(s) 8 and 9 recite features similar to, but not necessarily coextensive with, those of claim 1. The Office applies the same analysis in rejecting claim(s) 8 and 9 as in rejecting claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are also directed to patent-eligible subject matter for reasons similar to claim 1 discussed above. (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pg. 2, paragraph 4 - pg. 7, paragraph 8 of this Office action, and the argument herein as addressed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 12-14, filed 24 December 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 24 December 2025. The rejections of claims 1-6, 8, and 9 have been withdrawn.
Clams 1, 8, and 9 stand objected to and claims 1-6 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue of “wherein the correcting the input value …” in line 8. Suggested claim language: “wherein the correcting of the input value …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 8 recites the grammatical issue of “wherein the correcting the input value …” in line 6. Suggested claim language: “wherein the correcting of the input value …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 9 recites the grammatical issue of “wherein the correcting the input value …” in line 7. Suggested claim language: “wherein the correcting of the input value …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 8-11 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 device (i.e. a control device) comprising of concrete devices (i.e. a memory and processor), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “calculate, for a corrected input value obtained by correcting an input value to a control target, a corrected output value output by a simulator that is set to a state different from a state of the control target envisaged at time of setting an output value of the control target corresponding to the input value”; “… the correcting the input value comprises applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value”; and “calculate, based on the corrected input value and the corrected output value, an input value to the control target in order to bring the output value of the control target closer to an envisaged value”.
The limitation of “calculate, for a corrected input value obtained by correcting an input value to a control target, a corrected output value output by a simulator that is set to a state different from a state of the control target envisaged at time of setting an output value of the control target corresponding to the input value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… the correcting the input value comprises applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “calculate, based on the corrected input value and the corrected output value, an input value to the control target in order to bring the output value of the control target closer to an envisaged value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a memory configured to store instructions”; “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”; “a control target”; “a simulator”; and “control the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target”.
The limitations “a memory configured to store instructions”; “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”; and “a simulator” 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 control target” 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 “control the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target” represents the mere output of data. The “transmitting” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting 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 elements of “a memory configured to store instructions”; “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”; and “a simulator” 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 element of “a control target” 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 “control the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target”, 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 elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculate a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value to the simulator …” and “… calculate the input value to the control target, based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value, and the ratio”.
The limitation of “… calculate a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value to the simulator” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… calculate the input value to the control target, based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value, and the ratio” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions …” and “the simulator”.
The limitations “ the processor is configured to execute the instructions …” and “the simulator” 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)).
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 “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions …” and “the simulator” 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).”
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 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculate a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value to the simulator” and “… calculate the input value to the control target, based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value, and the ratio”.
The limitation of “… calculate a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value to the simulator” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… calculate the input value to the control target, based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value, and the ratio” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator”.
The limitations “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator” 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)).
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 “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator” 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).”
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 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculate, for each input item to the control target and for each output item of the control target, a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value”, “... calculate a provisional input value for each output item, based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value and the ratio …”, and “…calculate the input value to the control target based on the provisional input value”.
The limitation of “… calculate, for each input item to the control target and for each output item of the control target, a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “... calculate a provisional input value for each output item, based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value and the ratio …” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… calculate the input value to the control target based on the provisional input value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator”.
The limitations “the at least processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator” 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)).
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 “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator” 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).”
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 5:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculate a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value to the simulator” and “… calculate the input value to the control target based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value, and a value obtained by converting the ratio based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value”.
The limitation of “… calculate a ratio of a change amount in an output value of the simulator of the control target with respect to a change amount in an input value to the simulator” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… calculate the input value to the control target based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value, and a value …” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… a value obtained by converting the ratio based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… a value obtained by converting the ratio based on a difference between the output value of the control target and the envisaged value, 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, “converting” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of data to obtain 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.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator”.
The limitations “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator” 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)).
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 “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” and “the simulator” 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).”
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 6:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… learn a correction method for the input value by using the input value, the output value, the corrected input value, and the corrected output value” and “calculate the corrected input value by correcting the input value using the correction method”.
The limitations of “… learn a correction method for the input value by using the input value, the output value, the corrected input value, and the corrected output value” and “calculate the corrected input value by correcting the input value using the correction method” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0302805 A1 (instant application), pg. 11, par. [0201] – [0208] and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …”.
The limitation “the processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” 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)).
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 “the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to …” 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).”
Considering the additional element individually 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 1, the claim recites a method comprising of a plurality of steps; and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “calculating, for a corrected input value obtained by correcting an input value to a control target, a corrected output value output by a simulator that is set to a state different from a state of the control target envisaged at time of setting an output value of the control target corresponding to the input value”; “… the correcting the input value comprises applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value”; and “calculating, based on the corrected input value and the corrected output value, an input value to the control target in order to bring the output value of the control target closer to an envisaged value”.
The limitation of “calculating, for a corrected input value obtained by correcting an input value to a control target, a corrected output value output by a simulator that is set to a state different from a state of the control target envisaged at time of setting an output value of the control target corresponding to the input value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… the correcting the input value comprises applying a finite impulse response filter to time-series data of the input value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “calculating, based on the corrected input value and the corrected output value, an input value to the control target in order to bring the output value of the control target closer to an envisaged value” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.”), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a memory configured to store instructions”; “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”; “a control target”; “a simulator”; and “controlling the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target”.
The limitations “a memory configured to store instructions”; “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”; and “a simulator” 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 control target” 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 “controlling the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target” represents the mere output of data. The “transmitting” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting 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 elements of “a memory configured to store instructions”; “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”; and “a simulator” 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 element of “a control target” 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 “controlling the control target by transmitting the input value to the control target”, 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 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 9:
Claim 9 represents a non-transitory recording medium claim to claim 8 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 10:
The limitation of claim 10 merely further details “a control target” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 11:
The limitation of claim 11 merely further details “an envisaged value” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in independent 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 simulation and control systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0232737 A1 discloses an analysis device, an analysis method, and a recording medium.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0284158 A1 discloses a determination apparatus, a determination method, and a recording medium having recorded thereon a determination program.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0291671 A1 discloses a control apparatus, a control method and a recording medium having recorded thereon a control program.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0378234 A1 discloses computer-implemented methods, software, and systems for automatically assessing simulation results obtained from simulation to predict production of a reservoir.
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