DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/29/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claim 1 has been amended and claim 21-22 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation, e.g.. “the at least one processor stores[..];the at least one processor acquires[..];the at least one processor acquires [..]; the at least one processor selects [..];the at least one processor outputs the target model[..], the at least one processor selects the target mode[..], wherein the at least one processor determines [..]; the at least one processor changes [..]; wherein the at least one processor limits, and wherein the at least one processor outputs[..]” should be change to
“the at least one processor configure to store[..];the at least one processor configure to acquire[..];the at least one processor configure to acquire [..]; the at least one processor configure to select [..];the at least one processor configure to output the target model[..], the at least one processor configure to select the target mode[..], wherein the at least one processor configure to determine [..]; the at least one processor configure to change [..]; wherein the at least one processor configure to limit, and wherein the at least one processor configure to output[..]”. Same as other dependent and independent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-12,15 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1, 4-5, 8-12,15 and 18-22 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 19 falls within category of process; For example, each of claims 1, 4-5, 8-12,15, 18, 20-22 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863));
Regarding Claims 1, 4-5, 8-12,15, 18, 20-22
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of evaluate a state of a facility based on one of a plurality of raw materials.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following bold limitations:
1. 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 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
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 outputs information 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.
The bold limitations above represent plurality of mental steps because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements . Therefore, the bold limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “selects a target model from the plurality of evaluation models, wherein the target model evaluates the state of the facility based on property data [..];selects the target model from the plurality of evaluation models[..], determines that the target raw material corresponds to a same cluster [..],when none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as the target raw material, changes a threshold value [..],limits a number of times that the threshold value is changed [..]” of mental steps because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements, see [0058]-[0064] of current application discloser .
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example,1st additional first element is “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” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For example, 2nd additional first element is “wherein the at least one processor outputs information 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” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or post solution activity) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 3rd additional element is “A model selection apparatus comprising at least one processor”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “processor”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 4-5, 8-12,15, 18, 20-22
Dependent claims 4-5, 8-12,15, 18, 20-22 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 4-5, 8-12,15, 18, 20-22 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea (bold) or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity and/ or post solution activity(italicized), mere use of instructions and/or generic facility and /or computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment(under line).
For examples:
4. when none of the plurality of raw materials belongs to the same cluster as that of the target raw material, the at least one processor changes the threshold value based on hierarchical clustering of the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials(mental step).
5. wherein at least one of the plurality of raw materials comprises crude oil.
8. the property data of each of the plurality of raw materials includes data that indicates at least one of a chemical property of the crude oil and/or a physical property of the crude oil.
9. the chemical property comprises a content of at least one of carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and/or metal.
10. the chemical property comprises a type of a molecular structure of a hydrocarbon.
11. the physical property comprises at least one of specific gravity, vapor pressure, kinematic viscosity, and/or pour point.
12. at least one of the plurality of raw materials comprises at least one of a fossil fuel and/or water.
15. wherein the at least one processor generates an operation model that outputs an action in accordance with the state of the facility by reinforcement learning in which an output of the target model is set as at least a part of a reward(mental step).
18. a control unit that controls a control target in the facility by using the operation model.(post solution activity)
21. the hierarchical clustering the property data of the plurality of raw materials comprises dendrogram analysis(mental step).
22. the facility is at least one of an oil refinery that refines crude oil as one of the plurality of raw materials into at least one petroleum product as the product, a coal- fired power plant in which sulfur content of coal as one of the plurality of raw materials affects a degree of combustion of the coal, or a water purification plant in which a liquid quality of raw water as one of the plurality of raw materials affects an amount of chemicals to be used;
each of the plurality of raw materials has differences in natural characteristics depending on at least one of a production region and/or a production time;
the natural characteristics comprise at least one of reactivity, corrosiveness, toxicity, and/or combustibility that causes differences in product suitability, product quality, quality assurances, energy saving, greenhouse gas reduction, and/or yield, and/or influence operation of the facility; and
the at least one processor outputs information indicating that none of the plurality of raw materials belong to the same cluster as a target raw material, wherein the at least one processor performs at least one of: (i) initiating generation of a new evaluation model for the target raw material; or (ii) controlling operation of the facility based on a selected target model, based on the information.
Regarding Claims 19-20
Claims 19-20 contains language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 119-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, 19 and 20, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 10-14.Applicant Argus that the amended limitation Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to an abstract idea; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because current amended limitation also directed to abstract idea of mental steps because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements. In combination, the additional amendment elements recite in current claim invention that would not integrate into a practical application, e.g. “the at least one processor outputs information 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” are field of use and/or data gathering limitation or a post solution activity in the pertaining industry. The only other additional elements appear to be generic computer components and output results of the analysis. These “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/ software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting a analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, current claim invention is not like Ex Parte Desjardins et al (improvements to the ML/AI algorithm described or discussed in the specification). current 101 rejection based on 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. outputting the result from the generic computer component as tool are mere data gathering and output recited data gathering, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection over claims 1 and 19-20, however there is 101 rejection. The closets prior art, Kumer et al. (US 11,105,787) discloses an apparatus includes at least one processor configured to obtain inline measurements of one or more properties of crude oil, translate the measurements into a set of process and control parameters, and apply the process and control parameters to process equipment. The process and control parameters configure the process equipment to process the crude oil having the one or more properties. The one or more properties of the crude oil may include at least one of: density, specific gravity, viscosity, carbon residue, and sulfur content of the crude oil. The process and control parameters could be applied to one or more controllers associated with a blending unit in a refinery or to one or more controllers associated with a crude oil distillation column in the refinery.
The closets prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 19-20, e.g. “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 outputs the target model, 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, 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, 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 limits a number of times that the threshold value is changed to a predetermined number of times”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 2025/0296609: disclose he controller: configures a first digital twin model that simulates a target of value enhancement belonging to the railway system; fetches operation data of the target to adjust a parameter of the first digital twin model; configures a second digital twin model that simulates a target of update obtained when the accuracy of the first digital twin model is enhanced and the value of the target is enhanced; and compares results of simulations obtained when the first digital twin model and the second digital twin model are operated under identical conditions and thereby enables evaluation of the value enhancement. A description will be given to a railway upcycle generation method for using the railway upcycle system or the railway upcycle method to generate a railway system with the target's value enhanced.
b) US 2025/0191688: disclose a dataset used for model training and evaluation. FIG. 6A shows an example of a dataset DSA for a clone that produces an antibody A as a useful substance, and FIG. 6B shows an example of a dataset DSB for a clone that produces an antibody B as a useful substance. Although not shown, the same applies to a dataset for a clone that produces another type of antibody as a useful substance. The useful substance is not limited to an antibody and may be an antibody-like protein. The useful substance may be any of a protein, a peptide, or a virus, which is a pharmaceutical raw material.
c) US 2023/0027383: disclose Specifically, the factor selecting unit 252 selects a factor necessary and sufficient in identification of a prediction model of a prediction target using the factor data portion for specimen 352A1 and the prediction target data for specimen 351. The factor selecting unit 252 outputs, as the factor data portion for specimen 352A2 and the factor data portion for prediction 353A2 (see FIG. 6), portions corresponding to the selected factor in the factor data portion for specimen 352A1 and the factor data portion for prediction 353A1. Specifically, first, the factor selection operation unit 252B calculates contributions (contributions to a prediction) of factors using a publicly-known method. Subsequently, the factor selection operation unit 252B identifies a plurality of prediction models using the factors in the order depending on whether their contributions are larger or smaller. The factor selection operation unit 252B calculates prediction accuracies of the respective prediction models (an example of evaluation values of the prediction models), selects a factor used in a prediction model having the best prediction accuracy, and outputs the factor data portion for specimen 352A2 and the factor data portion for prediction 353A2 corresponding to the selected factor.
d)US 2022/0284346: disclose by using the at least one production parameter about the production of each produced object of the target process and the quality evaluation of each downstream produced object; a calculating unit for calculating a model evaluation based on at least one of certainty or complexity of the estimation model; and a model evaluation sending unit for sending the calculated model evaluation, to an evaluation apparatus for evaluating at least one upstream process by using a model evaluation about each of the at least one upstream process.
e) US 2021/0334726: disclose computer tool determines target feedstock for a refinery, process complex, or plant. The tool receives a dataset of market conditions and preprocesses the data based on properties of the plant. Using the preprocessed data and machine learning, the tool trains predictive models. Each predictive model calculates a breakeven value of a candidate feedstock for the given plant under an individual market condition. Different predictive models optimize for different market conditions. A trained predictive model is selected based on a current market condition. The tool applies the selected predictive model and determines whether a candidate feedstock is a target feedstock for the refinery under the current market condition.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights