DETAILED ACTION
Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claims 1-29 are pending and examined in the instant Office action.
Claim Comments - 35 USC § 112(f) - Means plus function
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data processing unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As per paragraphs 28-29 of the specification, the data processing unit is a component of a computer system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 21-23, 25, and 28 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.
The term “calculation efficiency rules” in each of claims 22, 25, and 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “efficiency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what makes a calculation rule efficient as opposed to inefficient. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that any calculation rule is efficient.
Claim limitation “data processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While paragraphs 28-29 of the specification disclose that a data processing unit is a component of a computer system, the specification does not indicate whether this component is hardware or software. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that this component can be hardware or software.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection #1:
Claims 1-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are drawn to a system comprising a data processing unit and computer code. Since a data processing unit comprises software, the system comprises software. Software, per se, is not a statutory class of invention.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection #2:
Claim(s) 1-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claims 1-7 and 21-23 are drawn to a system comprising a data processing unit, claims 8-14 and 24-26 are drawn to methods, and claims 15-20 and 27-39 are drawn to non-transitory computer readable media.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1 : YES; except for claims 1-7 and 21-23) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
The independent claims recite the mental step of evaluating chemical process models involving unit operations.
The independent claims recite the mental step of requiring the model to have at least three layers.
The independent claims recite the mental step of transforming objects to convert between the three layers.
The independent claims recite the mental step of using layer operations rules directing each unit operation to operate on either the middle layer or internal layer.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the mental step of constraining the species of each of the streams.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the mental step of preventing unauthorized users from accessing proprietary data.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the mental step of requiring component-sensitive thermodynamic calculations.
Claims 5 and 12 recite the mental step of constraining the operations to comprise thermodynamic operations.
Claim 6, 13, and 19 recite the mental step of constraining the thermodynamic operation to be related to entropy and/or Gibbs free energy.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the mental step of the unit operations comprising allocation.
Claims 21, 24, and 27 recite the mental step of requiring component-sensitive rules.
Claims 22, 25, and 28 recite the mental step of requiring calculation rules.
Claims 23, 26, and 29 recite the mental step of updating stream-related data.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 1-29 recite(s) an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic treatment.
As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, claims 1-29 is/are directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
The document of Varshney et al. [US PGPUB 2015/0157752 A1] teaches that using computers to analyze data of gases is routine and conventional in the prior art.
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed analysis engine requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The limitation for treating the tumor cells equate to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic way because the treating step is so generically recited. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-29 is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #1:
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittel et al. [WO 2020/058179 A1] as evidenced by Clark [A brief introduction to the relationship between Gibbs free energy and equilibrium constants, 2017] in view of Yamazaki et al. [US PGPUB 2003/0004696 A1].
Claim 8 is drawn to a method of chemical process modeling. The method comprises evaluation a chemical process model. The process model comprises one or more unit operations, one or more input streams into each unit operation, and one or more streams from each unit operation. Each of the streams comprise chemical composition data wherein each of the unit operations comprises one or more calculations of a relationship between the input stream and the output stream. The method comprises maintaining stream composition data in at least three layers: an external layer, a middle layer, and an internal layer. The external layer comprises mixed species, individual species, or both (as determined by the user). The middle layer comprises individual species duplicated by source. The internal layer comprises only unique individual species. The method comprises applying layer operation rules to directed each operation to operate in either the middle layer or internal layer. The method comprises applying transformation objects to convert between the three layers as directed by rules.
Claim 1 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 8, except claim 1 is drawn to a system.
Claim 15 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 8, except claim 15 is drawn to computer-readable media.
The document of Dittel et al. studies simulation of unit operations of a chemical plant for acid gas removal [title]. Figure 1 and pages 11-12 of Dittel et al. teach a sequence of unit operations for a chemical plant for acid gas removal with a stream between each processing unit. The table on pages 31-32 of Dittel et al. lists the species (and operating conditions) of the input gas stream of which the acid species are removed as a result of the unit operations. The disclosure of Dittel et al. species the rules for operations for each of the units.
Dittel et al. does not teach computer automation of the chemical plant.
The document of Yamazaki et al. studies a method of analyzing chemical processes [title]. Figures 1-3 of Yamazaki et al. illustrate the simulation of a chemical process plant with each building block being a simulated unit operation.
With regard to claims 2, 9, and 16, the table on pages 31-32 of Dittel et al. lists the species (and operating conditions) of the input gas stream of which the acid species are removed as a result of the unit operations.
With regard to claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-19, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-28, page 17, lines 19-27 of Dittel et al. teach that there are component-sensitive rules regarding equilibrium relations (i.e. calculations) that the power plant follows. It is evident from Clark that the equation for the equilibrium is based on the thermodynamic property of Gibbs free energy.
With regard to claims 23, 26, and 29, Figure 2 and page 19, lines 4-27 of Dittel et al. teach streams entering processing units, and consequently, updating the contents of the output streams from each of the aforementioned processing units.
It would have been obvious at the time of the instant invention to modify the analysis of the chemical power plant of Dittel et al. by use of the automated chemical power plant of Yamazaki et al. wherein the motivation would have been that automating a manual activity yields improved efficiency accuracy without the need of conducting industrial scale experiments [abstract and Figures 1-3 of Yamazaki et al.].
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #2:
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittel et al. as evidenced by Clark in view of Yamazaki et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-29 above, in further view of Abdel-Khalik [US PGPUB 2019/0377311 A1].
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are further limiting prohibiting unauthorized access of users to proprietary data.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are further limiting requiring data allocation.
Dittel et al. and Yamazaki et al. make obvious analysis of an automated chemical process plant, as discussed above.
Dittel et al. and Yamazaki et al. do not teach the features of preventing unauthorized access and data allocation.
The title and abstract of Abdel-Khalik teach system architecture and data processing of industrial process systems. Paragraph 7 of Abdel-Khalik teaches use of routers, firewalls, and cryptography to prevent unauthorized access to proprietary data. The cover figure of Abdel-Khalik teaches the computer system and computer server that allocates data.
It would have been obvious at the time of the instant invention to modify the analysis of the chemical process plant of Dittel et al. and the automated chemical power plant of Yamazaki et al. by use of the data allocation and prevention of unauthorized access of Abdel-Khalik wherein the motivation would have been that these enhanced computer system and computer server features further facilitate the automation accuracy and security [cover figure and paragraph 7 of Abdel-Khalik].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Double Patenting Rejection #1:
Claims 1-3, [4 or 21], 5-10, [11 or 24], 12-17, [18 or 27], and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,776,667 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are analogously drawn to systems for modeling chemical process plants. While the claims of ‘667 recite additional subject matter relative to the instantly rejected claims, the claims of ‘667 anticipate the instantly rejected claims.
Double Patenting Rejection #2:
Claims [22 or 23], [25 or 26], and [28 or 29] are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,776,667 B2 in view of Dittel et al. as evidenced by Clark. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are analogously drawn to systems for modeling chemical process plants. The claims of ‘667 do not teach calculation rules or updating streams.
Page 17, lines 19-27 of Dittel et al. teach that there are component-sensitive rules regarding equilibrium relations (i.e. calculations) that the power plant follows. It is evident from Clark that the equation for the equilibrium is based on the thermodynamic property of Gibbs free energy. Figure 2 and page 19, lines 4-27 of Dittel et al. teach streams entering processing units, and consequently, updating the contents of the output streams from each of the aforementioned processing units.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the claims of ‘667 by use of the chemical process plant calculations and stream updates of Dittel et al. wherein the motivation would have been that Dittel et al. teaches additional tools that facilitate operation of the chemical process plant [page 17, lines 19-27, page 19, lines 4-27, and Figure 2 of Dittel et al.].
Related Art
The document of Hou et al. [WO 2021/141664 A1] teaches automated operation of the chemical process plant using software from Aspen Technology, Inc, [title and abstract]. The abstract and illustrates of Hou et al. gives details on the simulated operation of a chemical process plant.
E-mail Communications 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.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Russell Negin, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1083. This Examiner can normally be reached from Monday through Thursday from 8 am to 3 pm and variable hours on Fridays.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Larry Riggs, Supervisory Patent Examiner, can be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/RUSSELL S NEGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1686 26 August 2026
Prosecution Insights