DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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, 3-6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for determining biochar identity, implemented by a processor and a memory storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, comprising: screening physical and chemical property parameters of multiple samples, wherein the multiple samples comprise waste biomass and biochar obtained by carbonizing the waste biomass, the biochar is a solid material obtained by carbonizing the waste biomass, and the physical and chemical property parameters comprise a carbon storage value, a fertility value, a pH scale, and particle size distribution; defining specific physical and chemical property parameters to obtain a plurality of physical and chemical property indexes, wherein the plurality of physical and chemical property indexes comprise a hydrogen content, an organic carbon concentration, a nitrogen content, a phosphorus content, a potassium content, a pH scale, a specific surface area, and a pore volume; sequentially numbering the physical and chemical property indexes, and assembling in the form of row vectors to form input vectors of the multiple samples; selecting waste biomass from different regions and biochar respectively prepared at different carbonization temperatures, experimentally measuring a value corresponding to each physical and chemical property index, and arranging physical and chemical property data corresponding to each sample in a row order based on the input vector form of each sample to obtain an input variable data matrix, wherein the input variable data matrix is a data matrix with n rows and p columns, p represents a number of physical and chemical property indexes, n represents a number of the multiple samples, and the multiple samples comprise waste biomass and biochar corresponding to the waste biomass; labeling identity category labels of the multiple samples one by one according to row numbers of the input variable data matrix to form a sample identity multi-category label column vector; constructing the high-dimensional multi-category biochar sample data based on the input variable data matrix and the sample identity multi-category label column vector; performing abnormality detection and standardization processing on the input variable data matrix in the high-dimensional multi-category biochar sample data to obtain a processed input variable data matrix; constructing a feature data matrix based on the processed input variable data matrix; obtaining a random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning classifier based on the feature data matrix, the sample identity multi-category label column vector and a random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning algorithm, wherein the random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning classifier is .”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 8.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method for determining biochar identity, implemented by a processor and a memory storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, comprising screening physical and chemical property parameters of multiple samples, wherein the multiple samples comprise waste biomass and biochar obtained by carbonizing the waste biomass, the biochar is a solid material obtained by carbonizing the waste biomass, and the physical and chemical property parameters comprise a carbon storage value, a fertility value, a pH scale, and particle size distribution; defining specific physical and chemical property parameters to obtain a plurality of physical and chemical property indexes, wherein the plurality of physical and chemical property indexes comprise a hydrogen content, an organic carbon concentration, a nitrogen content, a phosphorus content, a potassium content, a pH scale, a specific surface area, and a pore volume;
In Claim 8: An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor runs the computer program to enable the electronic device to perform operations, comprising: screening physical and chemical property parameters of multiple samples, wherein the multiple samples comprise waste biomass and biochar obtained by carbonizing the waste biomass, the biochar is a solid material obtained by carbonizing the waste biomass, and the physical and chemical property parameters comprise a carbon storage value, a fertility value, a pH scale, and particle size distribution; defining specific physical and chemical property parameters to obtain a plurality of physical and chemical property indexes, wherein the plurality of physical and chemical property indexes comprise a hydrogen content, an organic carbon concentration, a nitrogen content, a phosphorus content, a potassium content, a pI scale, a specific surface area, and a pore volume.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a processor and a memory storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations (Claim 1) or a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor runs the computer program to enable the electronic device to perform operations (Claim 8) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite obtaining physical and chemical property data of a sample(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-6, 10-13 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional element (“An electronic device) in Claims 10-13, similar to Claim 8, is generically recited and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 10-13 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
Johannes Lehmann et al. ,” Biochar for environmental management : science and technology / edited by Johannes Lehmann and Stephen Joseph”, Published by Earthscan in the UK and USA in 2009, London-Sterling VA, 12 p., https://biochar-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/prelim_ch1_2015biocharforenvironmentalmanagement_text.pdf, hereinafter ‘Lehmann’, discloses obtaining physical and chemical property data of a sample comprising a hydrogen content, an organic carbon concentration, a nitrogen content, a phosphorus content, a potassium content, a pH scale, a specific surface area, and a pore volume.
Hannah Larissa Nicholas et al., “Physico-chemical properties of waste derived biochar from community scale faecal sludge treatment plants”, Physico-chemical properties of waste derived biochar from community, National Institute of Health, 2022, https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/6-96/v2, hereinafter ‘Nicholas”, also discloses obtaining physical and chemical property data of a sample comprising a hydrogen content, an organic carbon concentration, a nitrogen content, a phosphorus content, a potassium content, a pH scale, a specific surface area, and a pore volume.
Kun Zhou et al. (CN 112287862), hereinafter ‘Zhou’, discloses performing abnormality detection and standardization processing on the input variable data matrix in the high-dimensional multi-category sample data to obtain a processed input variable data matrix.
CAO JIANGZHONG et al. (CN 112465062), hereinafter ‘Cao’, discloses constructing a feature data matrix based on the processed input variable data matrix; and obtaining nearest neighbor clustering classifier based on the feature data matrix.
Chatterjee Ajay et al. (US 20200097545) discloses multi-category label column vector and a nearest neighbor clustering learning algorithm.
Yuhong Guo et al., “Probabilistic Multi-Label Classification with Sparse Feature Learning”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, 3–9 August 2013, pp. 1373-1379, hereinafter ‘Guo’, discloses obtaining a random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning classifier based on the feature data matrix.
Mu Li et al. (US 20060287848) discloses random feature clustering with a classifier ensemble.
However, in regards to Claims 1 and 7, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Lehmann, Nicholas, Zhou, Cao, Ajay, Guo, and Li, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious constructing a feature data matrix based on the processed input variable data matrix; and obtaining a random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning classifier based on the feature data matrix, the sample identity multi-category label column vector and a random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning algorithm, wherein the random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning classifier is the biochar identity determination model, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.13-14): Although the incorporated "memory" and "computer" constitute a type of computer device, it is not a general-purpose computer, but rather a "specific machine" designed to execute specific algorithmic instructions. As recited in the amended claim 1, the processor executes specific computer program stored in the memory for implementing the construction and training of a random subspace nearest neighbor clustering ensemble learning classifier based on the physical and chemical property parameters of multiple samples, and identifying the biochar identity of a to- be-identified objective through this classifier. Therefore, it can achieve a specific function for determining the biochar identity of a to-be-identified objective, and should also be considered as a "specific machine".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The above additional elements are recited in generality and are not qualified for a particular machine. The Examiner submits that recited “… machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. … For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly") (MPEP 2106.05(b).II).
The Applicant argues (p. 15-16): The amended claim 1 has integrated the judicial exception into a practical application for identifying biochar identity of a to-be-identified objective with a more accurate recognition result, for use in appropriate applications. In addition, the Examiner properly determined that the prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, but Applicant notes that the cited references do not disclose the complete claimed process … The absence of any reference teaching the full claimed invention further supports that the claims are directed to a non- conventional, practical application.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner submits that the eligibility analysis presented in the rejection is consistent with the analysis in Flook. As noted by the Supreme Court in that case, in order to be patent eligible, the process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm, must be new and useful, the novelty of the algorithm is not a determining factor in determining eligibility.
The entire improvement (“identifying biochar identity of a to-be-identified objective with a more accurate recognition result”) is in the abstract idea. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
With regards to the novelty argument, the Examiner submits that novelty is a question of patentability under 35 USC § 102 and § 103; novelty is not a factor in the patent subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101. Synopsys v Mentor Graphics held that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea and that the search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty (SYNOPSYS, INC. v. 2 MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (CAFC Decided October 17, 2016): see page 24).
With regards to a practical application, the Examiner submits that the claims do not recite meaningful additional elements to demonstrate a practical application as required by MPEP.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Islam Sumaiya et al. (US 20210358571) discloses classifier that is trained by: sequentially providing, for each of a number of fusions, a matrix of feature vectors to the classifier; and sequentially updating, for each fusion included in the number of fusions, weights included in the classifier based on the matrix of feature vectors and a label associated with the fusion.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights