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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-22, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below:
Applicant argues on pg. 11, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Although the Applicant believes that the claims (pre-amendment) were adequately definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in the spirit of expediting patent prosecution, the Applicant has amended the claims for clarification. Favorable consideration is respectfully requested.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pgs. 11, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Notwithstanding this traversal by the Applicant, in the spirit of expediting patent prosecution, the Applicant has amended the pending claims to recite “at least one processor” or “a computer” to support the position of the Applicant that the claims do not relate to “a mental step”, “mere data gathering”, “observation”, or “steps that may be performed in the human mind”.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer; e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
Applicant argues on pgs. 11-18, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
The applicant has presented MPEP and case law for the date of December 5, 2025, wherein citations of pgs. 11-14 and 16-18 reference machine learning, wherein training a neural network model is not represented in any of the claims, and the only mention of training in the disclosure is related to utilizing of an evaluation model that is already trained prior to use; e.g., see para. [0023] of applicant’s specification. Further, all of the cited paragraphs of the applicant’s response are directed at an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a computer-related technological field.
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology of technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
In response to the first requirement, the applicant has not provided a cite to any particular part(s) of the disclosure that provides for an improvement and has instead provided citations of the MPEP. The disclosure; e.g., the specification and figures, has been searched and the only recitation of improvements is found in para. [0019] disclosing that “alterations and improvements can be added to the above-described embodiments” and “such alterations and improvements are made can be included in the technical scope of the present invention.” Therefore the first criteria in the evaluation of an improvement has not been met; e.g., the applicant has not argued the recitations in the specification so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
The examiner notes that the first criteria has not been met. However, the second criteria will be evaluated. The applicant has not provided criteria to be evaluated in the first requirement, and therefore it is not feasible to determine if the “reflected improvement” is represented in the instant claims. Therefore the second criteria has not been met, and the argument to an improvement is rendered moot.
Applicant argues on pg. 18, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“1) the recitations of the claims are not well known, as evidenced by the weakness of the prior art rejection (discussed below), 2) The recitations of the claims are significant, as evidence from both the weakness of the prior art rejection and the practical applications of the embodiments covered by the claims. 3) The recitations of the claims are significantly more than “necessary data gathering and outputting.”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. 1) The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action is not based on Well Understood, Routine, and/or Conventional. 2) The recitations of the claims as significant; e.g., construed as an argument towards an improvement, has not been shown (see above), and 3) The recitations do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea (see rejection below).
Applicant has argued on pgs.18-19, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“The claims now recite (as amended) limiting “… a number of times that the threshold value is changed to a predetermined number of times…” or similar. further, these claims now recite (as amended) providing “a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material.
Deodhar does not disclose, teach, or suggest the emphasized claim recitations of limiting “… a number of times that the threshold value is changed to a predetermined number of times…” or providing “…a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material…” nor does the Office Action make such assertions.
At least because the cited prior art reference does not each or suggest all the recitations of the claims, a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 cannot be established. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection and solicits a Notice of Allowance.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument mostly persuasive and mostly agrees. First, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is established when the USPTO examiner determines that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, wherein the examiner evaluates the prior art to identify the differences for assessment to determine if the claimed invention would have been obvious. Second, the Applicant has amended the instant claims to incorporate claims 2-3, as well as the limitations cited above in arguments; e.g., claim 1, lines 27-37. However, Deodhar is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing amended subject matter. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-12, 15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Apparatus claim 1, lines 1-2 disclose “A model selection apparatus comprising at least one process, wherein.” Claim 1, line 33 discloses “wherein the at least one processor provides a message.” It is unclear how a processor may provide a message; e.g., without the use of a display or speaker. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, the message must necessarily occur at a display or speaker. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 4-5, 8-12, 15, 18, and 21 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 19, lines 1-2 disclose “A model selection method that is executed by a computer.” Claim 19, line 32 discloses “providing a message.” It is unclear how a method executed by a computer may output/provide a message; e.g., without the use of a display or speaker. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, the message must necessarily output/provided by a display or speaker. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 20, lines 1-3 disclose “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having recorded thereon a model selection program that is executed by a computer and that causes the computer to function as.” Claim 20, line 33 discloses “wherein the model selection unit provides a message.” It is unclear how a computer comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium may perform the function of providing a message; e.g., without a display or speaker. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, a display or speaker is necessary. However, further clarification 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, 4-5, 8-12, 15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-12, 15 18, and 21 are directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A model selection apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein:
the at least one processor stores a plurality of evaluation models, wherein each of the plurality of evaluation models output information used to evaluate a state of a facility based on one of a plurality of raw materials, wherein the facility manufactures a product from at least one of the plurality of raw materials;
the at least one processor acquires property data of each of the plurality of raw materials;
the at least one processor selects a target model from the plurality of evaluation models, wherein the target model evaluated the state of the facility based on property data of a target raw material used in the facility in comparison to the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials; and
the at least one processor outputs the target model,
wherein the at least one processor selects the target model from the plurality of evaluation models based on similarity of the target raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials,
wherein the at least one processor determines that the target raw material corresponds to a same cluster as at least one of the plurality of raw materials according to the similarity of the target raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials based on clustering of the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials,
wherein when none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material, the at least one processor changes a threshold value of a distance between different instances of the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials which are used for clustering,
wherein the at least one processor limits a number of times that the threshold value is changed to a predetermined number of times, and
wherein the at least one processor provides a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses stores a plurality of evaluation models, wherein each of the plurality of evaluation models output information used to evaluate a state; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; acquires property data; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; selects a target model from the plurality of evaluation models, wherein the target model evaluates the state based on property data in comparison to the property data; and; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., human observation; outputs the target model; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; selects the target model from the plurality of evaluation models based on similarity of the target; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; determines that the target corresponds to a same cluster according to the similarity of the target based on clustering of the property data; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., human observation; wherein when none belong to the same cluster as the target, changes a threshold value of a distance between different instances of the property data which are used for clustering; limits a number of times that the threshold value is changed to a predetermined number of times; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
at least one processor,
the at least one processor
the at least one processor
the at least one processor
the at least one processor
wherein the at least one processor
wherein the at least one processor
the at least one processor
wherein the at least one processor
wherein the at least one processor
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
provides a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
of a facility based on one of a plurality of raw materials, wherein the facility manufactures a product from at least one of the plurality of raw materials
of each of the plurality of raw materials
of the facility
of a target raw material used in the facility
of each of the plurality of raw materials
raw materials with at least one of the plurality of raw materials
raw material
as at least one of the plurality of raw materials
raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw material
of each of the plurality of raw material
of the plurality of raw materials
raw material
of each of the plurality of raw materials
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4-5, 8-12, 15, 18, and 21 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 19 is directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 19 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A model selection method that is executed by a computer, the model selection method comprising:
storing, by the computer, a plurality of evaluation models, wherein each of the plurality of evaluation models output information used to evaluate a state of a facility based on one of a plurality of raw materials, wherein the facility manufactures a product from at least one of the plurality of raw materials;
acquiring, by the computer, property data of each of the plurality of raw materials;
selecting, by the computer, a target model from the plurality of evaluation models, wherein the target model evaluates the state of the facility based on property data of a target raw material used in the facility in comparison to the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials; and
outputting, by the computer, the target model,
wherein the selecting the target model from the plurality of evaluation models is based on similarity of the target raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials,
wherein the selecting the target model comprises determining that the target raw material corresponds to a same cluster as at least one of the plurality of raw materials is according to the similarity of the target raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials based on clustering of the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials,
wherein when none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material, changing a threshold value of a distance between different instances of the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials which are used for clustering, and
wherein a number of times that the threshold value is changed is limited to a predetermined number of times; and
providing a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 19 discloses storing, plurality of evaluation models, wherein each of the plurality of evaluation models output information used to evaluate a state; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; acquiring, property data; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; selecting, a target model from the plurality of evaluation models, wherein the target model evaluates the state based on property data of a target in comparison to the property data; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; outputting, the target model; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; wherein the selecting the target model from the plurality of evaluation models is based on similarity of the target; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; wherein the selecting the target model comprises determining that the target corresponds to a same cluster is according to the similarity of the target based on clustering of the property data; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; wherein when none belong to the same cluster as the target, changing a threshold value of a distance between different instances of the property data which are used for clustering, and; wherein a number of times that the threshold value is changed is limited to a predetermined number of times; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper . The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 19 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 19 further recites:
that is executed by a computer,
by the computer
by the computer,
by the computer,
by the computer,
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
providing a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
of a facility based on one of a plurality of raw materials, wherein the facility manufactures a product from at least one of the plurality of raw materials
of each of the plurality of raw materials
of a target raw material used in the facility
of each of the plurality of raw materials
of the target raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials
raw material
as at least one of the plurality of raw materials
raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials
of each of the plurality of raw materials
of the plurality of raw materials
raw material
of each of the plurality of raw materials
Analyzing this additional element of claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 19 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1:
Claim 20 is directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 20 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having recorded thereon a model selection program that is executed by a computer and that causes the computer to function as:
an evaluation model storage unit that stores a plurality of evaluation models, wherein each of the plurality of evaluation models output information used to evaluate a state of a facility based on one of a plurality of raw materials, wherein the facility manufactures a product from at least one of the plurality of raw materials;
a property data acquisition unit that acquires property data of each of the plurality of raw materials;
a model selection unit that selects a target model from the plurality of evaluation models, wherein the target model evaluates the state of the facility based on property data of a target raw material used in the facility in comparison to the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials; and
a target model output unit that outputs the target model,
wherein the model selection unit selects the target model from the plurality of evaluation models based on similarity of the target raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials,
wherein the model selection unit determines that the target raw material corresponds to a same cluster as at least one of the plurality of raw materials according to the similarity of the target raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials based on clustering of the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials,
wherein when none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material, the model selection unit changes a threshold value of a distance between different instances of the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials which are used for clustering,
wherein the model selection unit limits a number of times that the threshold value is changed to a predetermined number of times, and
where the model selection unit provides a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 20 discloses stores a plurality of evaluation models, wherein each of the plurality of evaluation models output information used to evaluate a state; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; acquires property data; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; selects a target model from the plurality of evaluation models, wherein the target model evaluates the state based on property data of a target in comparison to the property data; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; outputs the target model; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; selects the target model from the plurality of evaluation models based on similarity of the target; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; determines that the target raw material corresponds to a same cluster according to the similarity of the target based on clustering of the property data; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; wherein when none belong to the same cluster as the target, changes a threshold value of a distance between different instances of the property data which are used for clustering, limits a number of times that the threshold value is changed to a predetermined number of times, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 20 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 20 further recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having recorded thereon a model selection program that is executable by a computer and that causes the computer to function as:
an evaluation model storage unit that
a property data acquisition unit that
a model selection unit that
a target model output unit that
wherein the model selection unit
wherein the model selection unit
the model selection unit
wherein the model selection unit
wherein the model selection unit
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
provides a message indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material when the number of times that the threshold value was changed reaches the predetermined number of times and still none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material
Analyzing this additional element of claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
of a facility based on one of a plurality of raw materials, wherein the facility manufactures a product from at least one of the plurality of raw materials
of each of the plurality of raw materials
of the facility
raw material used in the facility
of each of the plurality of raw materials
raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials,
raw material
as at least one of the plurality of raw materials
raw material with at least one of the plurality of raw materials
of each of the plurality of raw materials
of the plurality of raw materials
raw material
of each of the plurality of raw materials
Analyzing this additional element of claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 20 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2011/0264415 A1 to Bleackley et al. relates to a configuration engine for a process simulator.
US 2016/0079756 A1 to Ikeyama et al. relates to a production energy management system and computer program.
US 2020/0184401 A1 to Papageorgiou et al. relates to a raw material evaluation process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857