DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on November 14, 2025. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 103 are maintained.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the first impurity comprises at least one of: an ion of an alkali earth metal; a calcium ion; a magnesium ion; a strontium ion; a barium ion; an aluminum ion; a nickel ion; an iron ion; an iodine ion; silicon; a sulfate ion; a suspended matter; and/or an organic matter” which is not disclosed in the specification and is deemed to be new matter. The specification defines the first impurity as the first impurity Im1 (PGpub ¶77), which is a current signal, corresponding to the first factor F1, which may cause the production efficiency PE to fall below the threshold value Tp (¶77). Thus, the disclosed first impurity is not a substance, but a representative signal that is used for data analysis, computer calculation, determination, comparison, etc. Thus, claim 21 introduces new matter that should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the 101 analysis on the patentable eligible subject matter is presented as follows:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 is directed to an operation support apparatus, which is a machine and falls within four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(II). Claim 1 recites (a) acquires production efficiency information of an electrolysis tank; (b) determines if the production efficiency information of the electrolysis tank indicates that production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below a predetermined production efficiency threshold value; (c) identifies, if it is determined that the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value, a first factor for which the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank has fallen below the production efficiency threshold value; and (d) identifies a first impurity which is in the electrolysis tank and corresponds to the first factor.” These limitations are directed to one of the judicial exceptions, i.e., abstract idea, because limitations (a)-(d) recite acquiring data, determining by comparison of values, and identifying a factor and an impurity, which is simple enough that it can be practically preformed in the human mind and falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Claim 1 recites the additional elements, the at least one processor for performing limitations (a)-(d) that are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the measuring circuit and the processor does not affect this analysis. MPEP 2106.05(I). Even when viewed in combination, the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. Claim 1 recites the limitations which are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In sum, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation(s) “(1) acquires the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank in real time; (2) determines in real time whether the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value; and (3) identifies the first factor in real time” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation(s) “identifies a first countermeasure which corresponds to the first factor and is for suppressing a decrease in the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank and recovering the production efficiency” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation(s) “identifies the first factor, the first impurity, and the first countermeasure in real time” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation(s) “wherein the production efficiency is current efficiency” and “determines whether the current efficiency is below a predetermined current efficiency threshold value” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation(s) “when determining that the current efficiency is equal to or greater than the current efficiency threshold value, the at least one processor further determines whether the voltage that was acquired is above a predetermined voltage threshold value, and if it is determined by the at least one processor that the voltage is above the voltage threshold value, the at least one processor identifies a second factor for which the voltage has gone above the voltage threshold value” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. Claim 6 further recites “acquires voltage to be supplied to the electrolysis tank”, which falls within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation(s) “calculates an electric power consumption rate of the electrolysis tank based on at least one of the current efficiency or the voltage, and the production efficiency is the current efficiency, or the electric power consumption rate calculated by the at least one processor” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation(s) “wherein if the production efficiency is the electric power consumption rate, the at least one processor, determines whether the electric power consumption rate is equal to or greater than a predetermined electric power consumption rate threshold value, and if it is determined by the at least one processor that the electric power consumption rate of the electrolysis tank is equal to or greater than an electric power consumption rate threshold value, and the at least one processor identifies the first factor or the second factor” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation(s) “acquires in real time the voltage to be supplied to the electrolysis tank, determines in real time whether the voltage to be supplied to the electrolysis tank is above the voltage threshold value, and identifies the second factor in real time” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation(s) “identifies a second impurity which is in the electrolysis tank and corresponds to the second factor, and identifies a second countermeasure which corresponds to the second factor and is for suppressing an increase in the voltage and recovering the voltage” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation(s) “identifies the second factor, the second impurity, and the second countermeasure in real time” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim further recites the limitation(s) “stores the first factor, the first impurity corresponding to the first factor, and the first countermeasure corresponding to the first factor”, which fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The further additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the claim further recites the limitation(s) “stores the second factor, the second impurity corresponding to the second factor, and the second countermeasure corresponding to the second factor”, which fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The further additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation(s) “wherein at least one of the production efficiency threshold value or the voltage threshold value changes as working time of the electrolysis tank elapses” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation(s) “calculates the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank based on the pH of the aqueous solution of alkali metal chloride that was acquired, and acquires the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank that was calculated” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The further recited additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. The limitation(s) “wherein the electrolysis tank includes an ion exchange membrane, and an anode chamber and a cathode chamber which are separated by the ion exchange membrane, an aqueous solution of alkali metal chloride is introduced into the anode chamber” is/are well-known in the art for an electrolysis tank and insignificant extra-solution activities. As evidenced by Nagino (US 2021/0216974), an electrolysis device is known to generate hydrogen by electrolyzing water or generate chlorine, hydrogen, and alkali hydroxide by electrolyzing an aqueous alkali chloride solution (Nagino, ¶6). For electrolysis of an alkali metal chloride aqueous solution such as salt solution and electrolysis of water, methods by use of an electrolyzer including a membrane, e.g., an ion exchange membrane, have been employed, as disclosed in Funakawa (US 2020/0102662). The membrane is interposed between each of electrolytic cell to perform electrolysis: one cathode chamber including a cathode and an anode chamber including an anode (Funakawa, ¶2: Background Art). As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation(s) “calculates, based on the pH that was acquired, an oxygen concentration, a hypochlorous acid concentration, and a sodium chlorate concentration in the anode chamber, as well as a hydrogen ion concentration and a hydroxide ion concentration of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution introduced into the anode chamber, calculates the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank based on the oxygen concentration, the hypochlorous acid concentration, and the sodium chlorate concentration in the anode chamber as well as the hydroxide ion concentration of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution introduced into the anode chamber and the hydrogen ion concentration of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution led out of the anode chamber, which are calculated by the at least one processor” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The recited additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. The limitation(s) “wherein the aqueous solution of alkali metal chloride is a sodium chloride aqueous solution or a potassium chloride aqueous solution, if the sodium chloride aqueous solution is introduced into the anode chamber, a sodium hydroxide aqueous solution is introduced into the cathode chamber, and if the potassium chloride aqueous solution is introduced into the anode chamber, a potassium hydroxide aqueous solution is introduced into the cathode chamber” is/are well-known in the art for an electrolysis tank and insignificant extra-solution activities. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation(s) “calculates a first relationship between pH of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution and the oxygen concentration, calculates a second relationship between the pH of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution and the hypochlorous acid concentration, calculates a third relationship between the pH of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution and the sodium chlorate concentration, calculates a fourth relationship between the pH of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution and the hydrogen ion concentration, and calculates a fifth relationship between the pH of the sodium chloride aqueous solution or the potassium chloride aqueous solution and the hydroxide ion concentration, and calculates the oxygen concentration based on the pH that was acquired and on the first relationship, calculates the hypochlorous acid concentration based on the pH that was acquired and on the second relationship, calculates the sodium chlorate concentration based on the pH that was acquired and on the third relationship, calculates the hydrogen ion concentration based on the pH that was acquired and on the fourth relationship, and calculates the hydroxide ion concentration based on the pH that was acquired and on the fifth relationship” fall(s) within four statutory categories of invention and “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The recited additional element(s), i.e., the at least one processor, does/do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it/they is/are recited so generically that it/they represent(s) no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the further recited limitation(s) “an electrolysis tank” is/are well-known in the art and insignificant extra-solution activities. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the 101 analysis on the patentable eligible subject matter is presented as follows:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 19 is directed to an operation support method, which is a process and falls within four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(II). Claim 19 recites (a) acquiring, by the at least one processor, production efficiency of an electrolysis tank; (b) first determining, by the at least one processor, whether the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank that was acquired in the acquiring the production efficiency is below a predetermined production efficiency threshold value; (c) if it is determined in the first determining that the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value, first identifying, by the at least one processor, a first factor for which the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank has fallen below the production efficiency threshold value; and (d) identifying a first impurity which is in the electrolysis tank and corresponds to the first factor.” These limitations are directed to one of the judicial exceptions, i.e., abstract idea, because limitations (a)-(d) recite acquiring data, determining by comparison of values, and identifying a factor, which is simple enough that it can be practically preformed in the human mind and falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Claim 19 recites the additional elements, the at least one processor, for performing limitations (a)-(d) that are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the measuring circuit and the processor does not affect this analysis. MPEP 2106.05(I). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. Claim 19 recites additional elements, the at least one processor, which is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In sum, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the 101 analysis on the patentable eligible subject matter is presented as follows:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 20 is directed to a computer readable medium having recorded thereon an operation support program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform operations, which is a machine and falls within four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(II). Claim 20 recites (a) acquiring production efficiency of an electrolysis tank; (b) first determining whether the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank acquired in the acquiring the production efficiency is below a predetermined production efficiency threshold value; (c) if it is determined in the first determining that the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value, first identifying a first factor for which the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank has fallen below the production efficiency threshold value; and (d) identifying a first impurity which is in the electrolysis tank and corresponds to the first factor.” These limitations are directed to one of the judicial exceptions, i.e., abstract idea, because limitations (a)-(d) recite acquiring data, determining by comparison of values, and identifying a factor, which is simple enough that it can be practically preformed in the human mind and falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Claim 20 recites the limitations (a)-(d) that are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the measuring circuit and the processor does not affect this analysis. MPEP 2106.05(I). Even when viewed in combination, these limitations do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. Claim 20 does not recite any additional elements, and the recited limitations are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In sum, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the further recited limitation(s) “wherein the first impurity comprises at least one of: an ion of an alkali earth metal; a calcium ion; a magnesium ion; a strontium ion; a barium ion; an aluminum ion; a nickel ion; an iron ion; an iodine ion; silicon; a sulfate ion; a suspended matter; and/or an organic matter” is/are well-known in the art and insignificant extra-solution activities. As a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception or adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagino (WO2020075767, published on April 16, 2020; a family US Patent Publication 2021/0216974 is used for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Nagino teaches an operation support apparatus comprising at least one processor (Fig. 1: planning device 30), wherein:
the at least one processor acquires production efficiency information of an electrolysis tank (Fig. 1; ¶16: an acquisition unit 100; ¶30: such as production efficiency);
the at least one processor determines whether if the production efficiency information of the electrolysis tank indicates that production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below a predetermined production efficiency threshold value (Fig. 2: the abnormality prediction model change unit 220; ¶41: a condition that an error difference due to learning falls below a predetermined threshold value); and
the at least one processor identifies, if it is determined that the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value, a first factor for which the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank has fallen below the production efficiency threshold value (¶42: using any machine learning model as an identification model, the abnormality prediction model update unit 220 can predict an abnormal operation corresponding to the first factor); and
the at least one processor identifies a first impurity which is in the electrolysis tank and corresponds to the first factor ((¶31: the first factor may also include a voltage value, a change in voltage, current efficiency, and purity of a product; here the signal representative of the purity of the product is deemed to be the first impurity as recited).
Regarding claim 2, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor acquires the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank in real time, the at least one processor determines in real time whether the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value, and the at least one processor identifies the first factor in real time (¶17: the acquisition unit 100 may be configured to acquire and update information every predetermined time period; e.g., in real time; and thus the determination and identification would be performed and updated in real time too).
Regarding claim 3, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor identifies a first countermeasure which corresponds to the first factor (¶44: the abnormality prediction unit 230 is configured to predict occurrence of the abnormal operation of the target apparatus 20 in a predetermined time period in the future) and is for suppressing a decrease in the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank and recovering the production efficiency (Fig. 2; ¶54: the maintenance plan generation unit 270 is configured to supply the generated maintenance plan to the configured to supply the generated maintenance plan to the maintenance plan output unit 280; ¶55: the maintenance plan output unit 280 is configured to output the maintenance plan to the maintenance management device 40; thus the performance of the updated maintenance plan would recover the production efficiency as the abnormality it acquires).
Regarding claim 4, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor identifies the first factor, the first impurity, and the first countermeasure (¶31: the first factor may also include a voltage value, a change in voltage, current efficiency, and purity of a product; Fig. 2: First Factor; Maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250; ¶47: the maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250 is configured to supply the generated maintenance plan generation model to the maintenance plan generation model update unit 260) in real time (¶17).
Regarding claim 5, Nagino teaches wherein
the production efficiency is current efficiency (¶31), and
the at least one processor determines whether the current efficiency is below a predetermined current efficiency threshold value (¶41: the abnormality prediction model update unit 220 may update the model according to a condition that an error difference due to learning falls below a predetermined threshold value; ¶31: the current efficiency).
Regarding claim 12, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor stores the first factor, the first impurity corresponding to the first factor, and the first countermeasure corresponding to the first factor (¶29: in the storage unit 110, a first factor, a second factor, and a third factor acquired by the acquisition unit 100 are stored; ¶31: the first factor may also include a voltage value, a change in voltage, current efficiency, and purity of a product; Fig. 2: First Factor; Maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250; ¶47: the maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250 is configured to supply the generated maintenance plan generation model to the maintenance plan generation model update unit 260).
Regarding claim 13, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor stores the second factor, the second impurity corresponding to the second factor, and the second countermeasure corresponding to the second factor (¶29: in the storage unit 110, a first factor, a second factor, and a third factor acquired by the acquisition unit 100 are stored; ¶34: the second factor (maintenance prediction factor) may include information about maintenance of the target apparatus 20; may also include the abnormality prediction generated by the abnormality prediction unit 230).
Regarding claim 14, Nagino teaches wherein at least one of the production efficiency threshold value or the voltage threshold value changes as working time of the electrolysis tank elapses (Fig. 2: indicating the abnormality prediction model and the maintenance plan generation model are updated constantly; ¶38: the information of the first factor, the second factor, and the third factor may be updated over time).
Regarding claim 18, Nagino teaches an operation support system comprising the operation support apparatus according to claim 1 (as described in claim 1) and an electrolysis tank (Fig. 1: target apparatus 20; ¶14: e.g., a hydrogen generation device configured to perform salt electrolysis or alkaline water electrolysis).
Regarding claim 19, Nagino teaches an operation support method (¶5: planning method) using at least one processor (Fig. 1: planning device 30) comprising:
acquiring, by the at least one processor (Fig. 1; ¶16: an acquisition unit 100), production efficiency of an electrolysis tank (¶30: such as production efficiency);
first determining, by the at least one processor (Fig. 2: the abnormality prediction model change unit 22), whether the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank that was acquired in the acquiring the production efficiency is below a predetermined production efficiency threshold value (¶30: such as production efficiency; ¶41: a condition that an error difference due to learning falls below a predetermined threshold value); and
if it is determined in the first determining that the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value, first identifying, by the at least one processor, a first factor for which the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank has fallen below the production efficiency threshold value (¶42: using any machine learning model as an identification model, the abnormality prediction model update unit 220 can predict an abnormal operation corresponding to the first factor); and
identifying a first impurity which is in the electrolysis tank and corresponds to the first factor (¶31: the first factor may also include a voltage value, a change in voltage, current efficiency, and purity of a product; here the signal representative of the purity of the product is deemed to be the first impurity as recited).
Regarding claim 20, Nagino teaches a computer readable medium (Fig. 1; ¶16: storage unit 110) having recorded thereon an operation support program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform operations (¶18: the storage unit 110 is configured to store the information acquired by the acquisition unit 100 and information generated by the generation unit 130; data that is to be processed in the planning device 30 may also be stored) comprising:
acquiring production efficiency of an electrolysis tank (Fig. 1; ¶16: an acquisition unit 100; ¶30: such as production efficiency);
first determining whether the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank acquired in the acquiring the production efficiency is below a predetermined production efficiency threshold value (Fig. 2: the abnormality prediction model change unit 22; ¶30: such as production efficiency; ¶41: a condition that an error difference due to learning falls below a predetermined threshold value); and
if it is determined in the first determining that the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank is below the production efficiency threshold value, first identifying a first factor for which the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank has fallen below the production efficiency threshold value (¶42: using any machine learning model as an identification model, the abnormality prediction model update unit 220 can predict an abnormal operation corresponding to the first factor); and
identifying a first impurity which is in the electrolysis tank and corresponds to the first factor (¶31: the first factor may also include a voltage value, a change in voltage, current efficiency, and purity of a product; here the signal representative of the purity of the product is deemed to be the first impurity as recited).
Claim(s) 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagino.
Regarding claim 6, Nagino discloses all limitations of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the at least one processor acquires voltage to be supplied to the electrolysis tank, when determining that the current efficiency is equal to or greater than the current efficiency threshold value, the at least one processor further determines whether the voltage that was acquired is above a predetermined voltage threshold value, and if it is determined by the at least one processor that the voltage is above the voltage threshold value, the at least one processor identifies a second factor for which the voltage has gone above the voltage threshold value.
However, Nagino teaches the first factor may also include a voltage value, a change in voltage (¶31). The abnormality prediction model update unit 220 may update the abnormality prediction model according to various conditions such as a condition that an error difference falls below a predetermined threshold value (¶41). When performing condition judging, the CPU judges whether various types of variables satisfy a condition, which indicates that the variables are larger, smaller, equal or larger, equal or smaller, or equal, as compared to the other variables or constants (¶123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagino for acquiring voltage and performing the condition judging as determining whether the current efficiency is equal to or greater than the current efficiency threshold value or whether the voltage is above the voltage threshold value for identification of the condition because Nagino’s device is capable of acquiring voltage and its CPU is capable of judging and identifying conditions whether any variable is larger, smaller, or equal to constant (¶123). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor acquires in real time (¶17) the voltage to be supplied to the electrolysis tank (¶31), the at least one processor determines in real time whether the voltage to be supplied to the electrolysis tank is above the voltage threshold value (¶¶41, 123), and the at least one processor identifies the second factor (Fig. 2: Second Factor) in real time (¶17).
Regarding claim 10, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor identifies a second impurity (¶31: the first factor may also include a voltage value, a change in voltage, current efficiency, and purity of a product) which is in the electrolyte tank and corresponds to the second factor, and identifies the second countermeasure (Fig. 2: Second Factor; Maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250; ¶47: the maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250 is configured to supply the generated maintenance plan generation model to the maintenance plan generation model update unit 260) in real time (¶17).
Regarding claim 11, Nagino teaches wherein the at least one processor identifies the second factor, the second impurity, and the second countermeasure (Fig. 2: Second Factor; Maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250; ¶47: the maintenance plan generation model generation unit 250 is configured to supply the generated maintenance plan generation model to the maintenance plan generation model update unit 260) in real time (¶17).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagino in view of Hirai (US 2020/0190233).
Regarding claims 7-8, Nagino discloses all limitations of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the at least one processor calculates an electric power consumption rate of the electrolysis tank based on at least one of the current efficiency or the voltage, and the production efficiency is the current efficiency, or the electric power consumption rate calculated by the at least one processor (claim 7) or wherein if the production efficiency is the electric power consumption rate, the determination unit determines whether the electric power consumption rate is equal to or greater than a predetermined electric power consumption rate threshold value, and if it is determined by the at least one processor that the electric power consumption rate of the electrolysis tank is equal to or greater than an electric power consumption rate threshold value, the at least one processor identifies the first factor or the second factor (claim 8).
However, Hirai teaches a polymer electrolyte membrane used for alkali chloride electrolysis, which would reduce the electronic power consumption rate by a reduction of overvoltage of a membrane resistance to improve power generation performance (¶2), rendering it as a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagino by using the electric power consumption rate as a variable for the determination unit to calculate and used for identify as a factor because the electronic power consumption rate is a result-effective variable for the power generation performance (Hirai, ¶2), and can be optimized through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Thus, the electronic power consumption rate would be used as the identified factor to generate a countermeasure to improve the production efficiency of Nagino’s apparatus. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagino in view of Funakawa (US 2020/0102662).
Regarding claim 15, Nagino discloses all limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the electrolysis tank includes an ion exchange membrane, and an anode chamber and a cathode chamber which are separated by the ion exchange membrane, an aqueous solution of alkali metal chloride is introduced into the anode chamber.
However, Funakawa teaches an electrolytic cell 1 comprising an anode chamber 10 and a cathode chamber 20 (Fig. 5; ¶¶501-502). An ion exchange membrane 2 is arranged between the anode chamber and the cathode chamber of the electrolyte cell 1 (¶503). The anode chamber has an anode-side electrolyte solution supply unit that supplies an electrolyte solution to the anode chamber (¶506).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagino by incorporating an ion exchange membrane, an anode chamber with an electrolyte solution supply unit, and a cathode chamber separated by the ion exchange membrane as taught by Funakawa because they are well-known components for electrolysis tank of an alkali metal chloride aqueous (Funakawa, ¶2). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Nagino does not disclose wherein the at least one processor calculates the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank, the at least one processor acquires pH of the aqueous solution of alkali metal chloride introduced into the anode chamber, the at least one processor calculates the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank based on the pH of the aqueous solution of alkali metal chloride that was acquired, and the at least one processor acquires the production efficiency of the electrolysis tank that was calculated.
However, Nagino teaches a planning device 30 including an acquisition unit 100, a learning unit 120, and a generation unit 130 (Fig. 1; ¶16). The learning unit 120 is configured to generate one or more learning models and to learn and update the learning model (Fig. 2; ¶19), and the generation unit 130 is configured to gene