DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1- 8 are pending and under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicants amendments to the claims received on 07/28/2026 have overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/28/2026. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
The 101 rejection(s) have been modified to address the amended claims.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, the previous prior art rejection over Wang has been modified to address the amended claims (see below).
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.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward a system. Claim 8 is directed toward a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea(s) “converts information received from the information receiver” and claim 8 recites the abstract idea(s) “converting the information received in the receiving” which are mathematical concepts and could be performed by a human person or by pen and paper or by a generic computer. The transmission device configured to receive, convert, and send data is merely a general-purpose computer for which to apply the abstract ideas, but does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. Upon converting the information, the information is sent to another controller to change an operation. However, these actions amount to insignificant extra solution activity and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and therefore is not a particular practical application.
Claim 1 and 8 also recites a reactor with a first controller that adjusts an operation of the reactor, an analyzer with a second controller that controls the analyzer, and an information transmission device that transmits information between the first and second controller. These limitations are interpreted as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. However, the use of generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea in a particular technological environment does not add significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment. Additionally, transmitting data does not integrate the exception into a practical application because transmitting is insignificant post-solution activity, similar to the alarm in Park v. Flook. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The first controller that changes the operation of the reactor to control a quality of the reaction product based on the information received from the second controller via the information transmission device and converted by the converter is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, and is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
Claims 1 and 8 recites a reactor with a first controller that adjusts an operation of the reactor, an analyzer with a second controller that controls the analyzer, an information transmission device that transmits information between the first and second controller, and changing the operation of the reactor to control a quality control of the reaction product with the first controller based on information received from the second controller. These additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Wang (US 2013/0297055 – hereinafter “Wang”) and Wimschneider et al. (US 2004/0158433 – hereinafter “Wimschneider”).
Wang and Wimschneider disclose a reactor with a first controller (Wang; figs. 1-2, #208, #216/217/218 [0017, 0020, 0033, 0036, 0040, 0042] & Wimschneider; fig. 1, #104, #120, [0035-0040]), an analyzer with a second controller that controls the analyzer (Wang; fig. 2, #206, #210, [0017, 0037, 0039] & Wimschneider; fig. 1, #106, #112, [0035-0040]), an information transmission device that transmits information between the first and second controller (Wang; fig. 2, #205, [0017, 0020, 0037-0040, 0045] & Wimschneider; fig. 1, #116, [0039-0041]), and changing the operation of the reactor to control a quality control of the reaction product with the first controller based on information received from the second controller (Wang; [0046] & Wimschneider; [0024, 0041-0042, 0051]).
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea(s) “converts information received from the first controller into a format processable by the second control program, and converts information received from the second controller into a format processable by the first control program” (Step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under 2A prong 2 because the use of generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea in a particular technological environment does not add significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment. Additionally, transmitting data does not integrate the exception into a practical application because transmitting is insignificant post-solution activity, similar to the alarm in Park v. Flook. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The claim additionally recites the first controller to be operated by a program in a first program language and the second controller to be operated by a second program in a second language. However, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea(s) “converts the control information received by the information receiver into a format processable by the second controller” (Step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under 2A prong 2 because the use of generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea in a particular technological environment does not add significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment. Additionally, transmitting data does not integrate the exception into a practical application because transmitting is insignificant post-solution activity, similar to the alarm in Park v. Flook. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Claim 4 recites the abstract idea(s) “converts the production information received by the information receiver into a format processable by the second controller” (Step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under 2A prong 2 because the use of generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea in a particular technological environment does not add significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment. The claim additionally recites the information receiver receives production information in regard to control of the analyzer from the first control and the information sender sends the production information converted by the converter to the second controller. However, transmitting data does not integrate the exception into a practical application because transmitting is insignificant post-solution activity, similar to the alarm in Park v. Flook. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea(s) “determines a transmission period of information” (Step 2A prong 1), but does not integrate the exception under 2A prong 2 because data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application because data gathering is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the use of generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception and MPEP §2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment. The claim additionally recites a period determiner. However, These additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) as evidenced by Waki (US 2004/0018118 – hereinafter “Waki”). Waki disclose a period determiner as a shift time determiner 24 that calculates a shift time between chromatograms based on the signals received from the signal processor 21, and a time canceller 25 that adds or subtracts an appropriate shift time to every binary signal sent from the binary converter 22; figs. 2-4, [0030, 0040].
Claim 6 further recites an information selector that selects information to be transmitted from the another controller to the one controller based on information received from the one controller by the information receiver. However, these additional elements do not effectively transform or reduce the system to a different state or thing beyond such that the claims recite significantly more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (See MPEP § 2106.05(c), Particular Transformation and MPEP § 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Wang disclose an information selector as an input/Output (I/O) cabinet 215 for linking the reactor with the analyzer for communication so proper output can be implemented and maintained; fig. 2, [0017, 0037, 0040, 0042, 0046].
Claim 7 further limits the received information as a period of time during which the reaction product is analyzed by the analyzer. However, these elements are interpreted as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application See MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and § 2106.05(f), Mere Instructions To Apply an Exception, and MPEP §2106.05(h), Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2013/0297055 – hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang disclose monitoring system that monitors a reactor for producing a reaction product (Wang disclose web-based system for control and monitoring of a pharmaceutical production process; figs. 1-2, [0033, 0036]. The production equipment comprises a reactor; fig. 2, #216/217/218, [0020, 0042], wherein the reactor has a specific type of interface connection for communicating with a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), UV spectrophotometers (GC), or electronic scales; [0017]), comprising:
a first controller that adjusts an operation of the reactor for producing the reaction product (Wang disclose a PLC controller 208 linked to I/O cabinet 215 for controlling the reactor in a pharmaceutical production process; fig. 2, #208, [0024, 0040, 0042, 0046]);
an analyzer that analyzes the reaction product (Wang disclose an HPLC and GC analyzer; fig. 2, #206, #210, [0017, 0037, 0039]. Note: What the analyzer analyzes relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims);
a second controller that controls the analyzer (Wang disclose the analyzers 206, 210 are directly linked to a switching device 205 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The examiner notes HPLC and GC analyzers comprise a controller for controlling operations of the analyzer); and
an information transmission device that transmits information between the first controller and the second controller (Wang disclose the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 and analyzers 206/210 connected to switch device 205. The switch device 205 is connected to a manufacturing execution system (MES) server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; fig. 2, [0037-0040]. The MES server 201 is connected to an HMI workstation 212 through the network 214 to manage and control the overall production; fig. 2, [0037, 0045]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]),
wherein the information transmission device includes an information receiver that receives information from one controller of the first and second controllers (Wang disclose the MES server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switch device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; [0038]. The switch device 205 is directly linked to the analyzer 206/210 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The switch device 205 is coupled to the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 which is connected to reactor 216/217/217 through input/output (I/O) cabinet 215 [0040, 0042]. The MES server is used to manage and process, read, write, delete, change, and backup the data; [0033]),
a converter that converts the information received from the information receiver into a format processable by another controller of the first and second controllers (Wang disclose Switch device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; [0038]. The switch device 205 is directly linked to the analyzer 206/210 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The switch device 205 is coupled to the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 which is connected to reactor 216/217/217 through input/output (I/O) cabinet 215 [0040, 0042]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]), and
an information sender that sends the information converted by the converter to the another controller (Wang disclose the MES server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switch device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; [0033, 0038]. The switch device 205 is directly linked to the analyzer 206/210 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The switch device 205 is coupled to the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 which is connected to reactor 216/217/217 through input/output (I/O) cabinet 215 [0040, 0042]. The MES server is used to manage and process, read, write, delete, change, and backup the data; [0033] The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]),
wherein the first controller changes the operation of the reactor to control a quality of the reaction product based on the information received from the second controller via the information transmission device and converted by the converter (Wang disclose a fully automated and computerized process control system (PAT) to effectively control the pharmaceutical drug production, manufacturing, and overall quality; [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1 above, wherein the first controller is configured to be operated by a first control program written in a first program language, the second controller is configured to be operated by a second control program written in a second program language, and the converter converts information received from the first controller into a format processable by the second control program, and converts information received from the second controller into a format processable by the first control program (Wang disclose the manufacturing execution system (MES) server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switching device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices. When data collection methods vary from equipment to equipment, the switching device 205 can be linked directly to equipment having a specific interface for a seamless transferring of data; [0038]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1 above, wherein the information receiver receives control information in regard to control of the analyzer as the information from the first controller, the converter converts the control information received by the information receiver into a format processable by the second controller, and the information transmitter transmits the control information converted by the converter to the second controller (Wang disclose the manufacturing execution system (MES) server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switching device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices. When data collection methods vary from equipment to equipment, the switching device 205 can be linked directly to equipment having a specific interface for a seamless transferring of data; [0038]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1 above, wherein the information receiver receives production information that is produced due to an operation of the analyzer as the information from the second controller, the converter converts the production information received by the information receiver into a format processable by the first controller, and the information sender sends the production information converted by the converter to the first controller (Wang disclose the MES server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switch device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices. When data collection methods vary from equipment to equipment, the switching device 205 can be linked directly to equipment having a specific interface for a seamless transferring of data; [0033, 0038]. The switch device 205 is directly linked to the analyzer 206/210 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The switch device 205 is coupled to the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 which is connected to reactor 216/217/217 through input/output (I/O) cabinet 215 [0040, 0042]. The MES server is used to manage and process, read, write, delete, change, and backup the data; [0033] The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020] The production, manufacturing, and overall quality of pharmaceutical drugs can be effectively controlled by a fully automated and computerized process control system (PAT); [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1 above, wherein the information transmission device further includes an information selector that selects information to be transmitted from the another controller to the one controller based on information received from the one controller by the information receiver (Wang disclose Input/Output (I/O) cabinet 215 for linking the reactor with the analyzer for communication so proper output can be implemented and maintained; fig. 2, [0017, 0037, 0040, 0042, 0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang disclose a monitoring method of monitoring a reactor that produces a reaction product (Wang disclose web-based system for control and monitoring of a pharmaceutical production process; figs. 1-2, [0033, 0036]. The production equipment comprises a reactor; fig. 2, #216/217/218, [0020, 0042], wherein the reactor has a specific type of interface connection for communicating with a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), UV spectrophotometers (GC), or electronic scales; [0017]), including the step of:
transmitting information between a first controller that adjusts an operation of the a reactor for producing the reaction product and a second controller that controls an analyzer for analyzing the reaction product (Wang disclose a PLC controller 208 linked to I/O cabinet 215 for controlling the reactor; fig. 2, #208, [0040, 0042]. Wang disclose the analyzers 206, 210 are directly linked to a switching device 205 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The examiner notes HPLC and GC analyzers comprise a controller for controlling operations of the analyzer. the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 and analyzers 206/210 connected to switch device 205. The switch device 205 is connected to a manufacturing execution system (MES) server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; fig. 2, [0037-0040]. The MES server 201 is connected to an HMI workstation 212 through the network 214 to manage and control the overall production; fig. 2, [0037, 0045]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]. The production, manufacturing, and overall quality of pharmaceutical drugs can be effectively controlled by a fully automated and computerized process control system (PAT); [0045-0046]), wherein
the step of transmitting includes receiving information from one controller of the first and second controllers (Wang disclose the MES server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switch device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; [0038]. The switch device 205 is directly linked to the analyzer 206/210 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The switch device 205 is coupled to the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 which is connected to reactor 216/217/217 through input/output (I/O) cabinet 215 [0040, 0042]. The MES server is used to manage and process, read, write, delete, change, and backup the data; [0033]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]),
converting the information received in the receiving into a format readable by another controller of the first and second controllers (Wang disclose Switch device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; [0038]. The switch device 205 is directly linked to the analyzer 206/210 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The switch device 205 is coupled to the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 which is connected to reactor 216/217/217 through input/output (I/O) cabinet 215 [0040, 0042]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]), and
transmitting the information converted in the converting to the another controller (Wang disclose the MES server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switch device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices; [0033, 0038]. The switch device 205 is directly linked to the analyzer 206/210 for rapid data exchange; [0039]. The switch device 205 is coupled to the programmable logic controller (PLC) 208 which is connected to reactor 216/217/217 through input/output (I/O) cabinet 215 [0040, 0042]. The MES server is used to manage and process, read, write, delete, change, and backup the data; [0033] The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]. The production, manufacturing, and overall quality of pharmaceutical drugs can be effectively controlled by a fully automated and computerized process control system (PAT); [0045-0046]),
wherein the first controller changes the operation of the reactor to control a quality of the reaction product based on the information received from the second controller in the receiving and converted in the converting (Wang disclose a fully automated and computerized process control system (PAT) to effectively control the pharmaceutical drug production, manufacturing, and overall quality; [0046]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Rajaram et al. (US 2004/0073893 – hereinafter “Rajaram”).
Regarding claim 2, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1 above, wherein the first controller is configured to be operated by a first control program written in a first program language, the second controller is configured to be operated by a second control program written in a second program language, and the converter converts information received from the first controller into a format processable by the second control program, and converts information received from the second controller into a format processable by the first control program (Wang disclose the manufacturing execution system (MES) server 201 is used to store and run a variety of software programs, as well as to store and extract all electronic data that needs to be collected. Switching device 205 is connected to the MES server 201 for the purpose of converting a variety of data inputs into a format such that the MES server 201 can receive and process various data collected from the different field production devices. When data collection methods vary from equipment to equipment, the switching device 205 can be linked directly to equipment having a specific interface for a seamless transferring of data; [0038]. The production equipment comprising the reactor have a specific type of interface connection for communicating with the HPLC and GC analyzers; fig. 2, [0017, 0020]. The examiner further notes that the web-based system require ).
If it is deemed that Wang does not teach wherein the first controller is configured to be operated by a first control program written in a first program language, the second controller is configured to be operated by a second control program written in a second program language, and the converter converts information received from the first controller into a format processable by the second control program, and converts information received from the second controller into a format processable by the first control program, Rajaram teach the analogous art of a first and second controller (Rajaram; figs. 1-2, #10a-10n, #20a-c, #21a-b, [0022, 0024]), and a converter that converts information received from one controller into a format processable by another controller of the first and second controllers (Rajaram; fig. 3, #33, [0035]), wherein the first controller is configured to be operated by a first control program written in a first program language, the second controller is configured to be operated by a second control program written in a second program language, and the converter converts information received from the first controller into a format processable by the second control program, and converts information received from the second controller into a format processable by the first control program (Rajaram; [0007, 0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second controllers and converter of Wang to be configured to operate programming language converted from another programming language, as taught by Rajaram, because Rajaram teach computing instructions that are written in a first computer language and are ready for execution on a first controller may need to be converted into an intermediate language that can execute on a second controller having an execution engine that does not recognize the first computer language (Rajaram; [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Wang and Rajaram both teach configuring a plurality of control devices to communicate with one another.
Regarding claim 3, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1 above.
If it is deemed that Wang does not teach wherein the information receiver receives control information in regard to control of the analyzer as the information from the first controller, the converter converts the control information received by the information receiver into a format processable by the second controller, and the information transmitter transmits the control information converted by the converter to the second controller, Rajaram teach the analogous art of a first and second controller (Rajaram; figs. 1-2, #10a-10n, #20a-c, #21a-b, [0022, 0024]), and a converter that converts information received from the first controller through a receiver into a format processable by the second controllers (Rajaram; fig. 3, #33, #34, [0007, 0009, 0035]), and the information transmitter transmits the control information converted by the converter to the second controller (Rajaram; Rajaram; fig. 3, #35, [0007, 0009, 0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second controllers of Wang to be configured to operate computer instructions converted from one controller to another controller, as taught by Rajaram, because Rajaram teach computing instructions that are written in a first computer language and are ready for execution on a first controller may need to be converted into an intermediate language that can execute on a second controller having an execution engine that does not recognize the first computer language (Rajaram; [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Wang and Rajaram both teach configuring a plurality of control devices to communicate with one another.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Waki (US 2004/0018118 – hereinafter “Waki”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 1 above, comprising the information transmission device.
Wang does not teach wherein the information transmission device further includes a period determiner that determines a transmission period of information from the another controller to the one controller based on information received from the one controller by the information receiver.
However, Waki teach the analogous art of a first controller (Waki; fig. 4, #9, “Mass spectrometer”, [0003, 0030]), a second controller (Waki; fig. 4, #7, “separation controller”, [0030]), and an information transmission device (Waki; fig. 4, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, [0030, 0040]), wherein the information transmission device an information receiver (Waki; fig. 4, #21, “signal processor”, [0030]), a converter (Waki; fig. 4, #22, “binary converter”, [0030]), and an information sender (Wiki; fig. 4, #23, “logical calculator”, [0030]), wherein the information transmission device further includes a period determiner that determines a transmission period of information from the another controller to the one controller based on information received from the one controller by the information receiver (Waki disclose chromatogram signals are sent from the MS to the signal processor 21 and converted to a series of binary signals of “0”s and “1”s. The logical calculator performs operations on the binary signals and the results are sent to the another controller 7; figs 2-4, [0030, 0033]. The shift time determiner 24 calculates a shift time between chromatograms based on the signals received from the signal processor 21, and the time canceller 25 adds or subtracts an appropriate shift time to every binary signal sent from the binary converter 22; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information transmission device of Wang to include a period determiner that determines a transmission period of information from the second controller to the first controller based on information received from the first controller by the information receiver, as taught by Waki, because Waki teach the period determiner allows synchronized timing as to the detection of components using multiple analyzers for batching off components from a sample at high accuracy; [0006, 0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Wang and Waki both teach controlling chromatography analysis of products using a plurality of controllers.
Regarding claim 7, Wang disclose the monitoring system according to claim 5 above, wherein the received information includes a period of time during which the reaction product is analyzed by the analyzer (The modification of the information transmission device of Wang to include a period determiner that determines a transmission period of information from the second controller to the first controller based on information received from the first controller by the information receiver, as taught by Waki, has previously been discussed in claim 5 above. Waki teach chromatograms representing a period of time during which a products is analyzed by the analyzer; figs. 2-3, [0033-0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive by the examiner.
Applicants argue on pages 8-10 of their remarks towards the 101 rejection that present claims 1 and 8 are directed to the action of the first controller changes the control of the reactor which is a physical manufacturing device using converted data, and thus are not directed to an abstract idea but rather to an action that improves an industrial process. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, and is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Additionally, these amendments are also WURC activities previously known to the industry. See Wang; [0046] & Wimschneider; [0024, 0041-0042, 0051]. Lastly, although the claim recites a physical manufacturing device and other elements, these additional elements do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, Claim 1 recites the abstract idea(s) “converts information received from the information receiver” and claim 8 recites the abstract idea(s) “converting the information received in the receiving” which is a mental process and/or mathematical concept and could be performed by a human person or by pen and paper or by a generic computer.
Applicant argues on pages 10-12 of their remarks towards the 102 rejection over claims 1-4, 6 and 8 that Wang does not teach the amended limitation of “the first controller changes the operation of the reactor to control a quality of the reaction product based on the information received from the second controller via the information transmission device and converted by the converter”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang discloses a fully automated and computerized process control system (PAT) to effectively control the pharmaceutical drug production, manufacturing, and overall quality; [0046].
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798 /BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights