DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “an equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “ranked list of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include “the equipment” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the one or more parameters, when it should recite the one or more parameters of particles. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the particle when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “ranked list of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include “the equipment” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” multiple times when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “an equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “ranked list of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include “the equipment” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the one or more parameters, when it should recite the one or more parameters of particles. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the particle when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “ranked list of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include “the equipment” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” multiple times when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “an equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “ranked list of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include “the equipment” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the one or more parameters, when it should recite the one or more parameters of particles. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the particle when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “ranked list of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include “the equipment” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “each equipment” multiple times when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “of equipment” when it is not the first recitation. It should include a “the” to properly refer back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 6-10 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 11-15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 6 and 11 recite the abstract idea of identifying an optimal piece of equipment from a ranking, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of " processing, by using the plurality of equipment simulators via the one or more hardware processors, the feed size distribution and the specification to obtain a plurality of operating spaces and an associated particle size distribution, wherein each operating space amongst the plurality of operating spaces is associated with an equipment simulator amongst the plurality of equipment simulators, and wherein each equipment simulator amongst the plurality of equipment simulators is associated with an equipment;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset of feed size distribution and a specification, as well as making a judgement about what an operating space and associated particle size distribution should be. But for the simulators implemented via one or more hardware processors, there is nothing that precludes operation of the claim in the human mind. Additionally, the limitation of “processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the plurality of operating spaces and the associated particle size distribution based on one or more associated equipment criteria to obtain a ranked list of equipment associated with the plurality of equipment simulators; and” covers mental processes including evaluating the operating spaces and making a judgement about what each piece of equipment should be ranked. Additionally, the limitation of “identifying, via the one or more hardware processors, an optimal equipment and one or more associated operating conditions for the identified optimal equipment based on the ranked list of equipment.” covers mental processes including making a judgement on what the optimal piece of equipment should be and what the operating conditions should be. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Similarly recited in Claims 1, 6 and 15, as well as dependent claims, the additional elements of “a plurality of equipment simulators via one or more hardware processors”, and “an equipment simulator”, “at least one computer-readable storage medium”, as well as “a memory” and “one or more communication interfaces” in claim 6 and “non-transitory computer-readable information storage mediums” in claim 11, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving, by a plurality of equipment simulators via one or more hardware processors, (i) a feed size distribution associated with a feed, and (ii) a specification associated with a product, wherein the feed size distribution is based on one or more parameters of particles comprised therein;” similarly recited in claims 1, 6 and 11, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 6 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly recited in Claims 1, 6 and 15, as well as dependent claims, the additional elements of “a plurality of equipment simulators via one or more hardware processors”, and “an equipment simulator”, “at least one computer-readable storage medium”, as well as “a memory” and “one or more communication interfaces” in claim 6 and “non-transitory computer-readable information storage mediums” in claim 11, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receiving, by a plurality of equipment simulators via one or more hardware processors, (i) a feed size distribution associated with a feed, and (ii) a specification associated with a product, wherein the feed size distribution is based on one or more parameters of particles comprised therein;” similarly recited in claims 1, 6 and 11, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 7 and 12 are directed to further defining the parameters, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3, 8 and 13 are directed to further defining how the operating spaces are determined, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 9 and 14 are directed to further defining the ranked list, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5, 10 and 15 are directed to defining the equipment criteria, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Runkana, Krahl and Majumder. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including processing, by using the plurality of equipment simulators via the one or more hardware processors, the feed size distribution and the specification to obtain a plurality of operating spaces and an associated particle size distribution, wherein each operating space amongst the plurality of operating spaces is associated with an equipment simulator amongst the plurality of equipment simulators, and wherein each equipment simulator amongst the plurality of equipment simulators is associated with an equipment; processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the plurality of operating spaces and the associated particle size distribution based on one or more associated equipment criteria to obtain a ranked list of equipment associated with the plurality of equipment simulators; and, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-15 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Runkana et al. “MODELLING AND OPTIMISATION OF DIRECT REDUCTION OF IRON ORE BY COAL IN A ROTARY KILN”: Also teaches the modeling of a pellet creating system using the particle size and type of equipment used.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights