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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising a combination of “capturing…”, “determining…”, “comparing…” and “evaluating…” is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determining at least one quality parameter corresponding to the at least one measured variable”; “comparing the determined quality parameter with a target value, which arises from the at least one individual process belonging to the measured variable, with closed-loop control using a control loop” and “evaluating, by way of the comparison, whether the use of closed-loop control using a control loop leads to an improvement in the quality parameter for the at least one individual process”. These limitations - recite a mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation therefore covers physics based simulation using fundamental heat balance equations, using a minimum of two operating and control parameters, and evaluation of such a simple equation is in principle performable in the human mind. - – Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “capturing at least one measured variable of at least one individual process without closed-loop control using a control loop”; and “plurality of individual processes, wherein closed-loop control is not used at least intermittently during the plurality of individual processes”.
The production process of capturing at least one measured variable at least one individual process without closed-loop control recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link and data gathering the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation capturing data, determining, comparing and evaluating at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the method uses to capturing, determining, comparing and evaluating (collecting analyzing data and evaluating), using the computer components as a tool (see 2106.04(d)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “capturing measured variable” no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
capturing data by the processor or computer as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see USPGPUB 20030204278 A1) and see 2106.05.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12-15 has similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim 2, recites the limitations “wherein the target value is determined in step c) as set forth below: i) simulating the individual process or/and a group of processes using closed- loop control, with the measured variable being used as a parameter in the simulation; ii) calculating a simulated quality parameter by means of the simulation; iii) using the simulated quality parameter as target value”. Applicants use simulating without any characterization. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation therefore covers physics based simulation using fundamental heat balance equations, using a minimum of two operating and control parameters, and evaluation of such a simple equation is in principle performable in the human mind. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 3, recites the limitations “wherein the quality parameter corresponding to the measured variable is determined on the basis of the actually created product”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4, recites the limitations “wherein the determination according to step b), the comparison according to step c), and the evaluation according to step d) are implemented parallel in time with the real production process”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5, recites the limitations “wherein the simulation includes consideration of at least one further individual process which differs from the individual process from which the measured variable originates”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6, recites the limitations “wherein the simulation includes consideration of the entire portion of the production process which influences the quality parameter”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7, recites the limitations “creating a modification proposition on the basis of the evaluation containing the use of a control loop; f) adapting the real individual process and/or the group of processes according to the modification proposition”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8, recites the limitations “wherein the measured variable is transmitted to a comparison unit, in particular an edge device, and the determination according to step b), the comparison of the determined quality parameter in step c), and the evaluation according to step d) are carried out in the comparison unit”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9, recites the limitations “wherein the measured variable contains sensor data from at least one sensor”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10, recites the limitations “wherein the measured variable comprises a temporal and/or spectral curve of sensor data from at least one sensor and/or values derived from the sensor data from the at least one sensor”, it’s an insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering). Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
claim 11, recites the limitations “an apparatus for carrying out a method as claim 1 comprising a) a sensor interface for capturing measured variables; b) a processor unit for comparing a determined quality parameter for at least one individual process with a target value ;c) a receiver interface for receiving target values, and d) an output interface for outputting a modification proposition”. Receiving data by the processor as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12, recites the limitations “realized as an edge device” is a device which depend on claim 11 is rejected same rational as of claim 11 and 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gunter et al USPGPUB 2003/0104278 a method and in a controller for an advanced process control one or more currently valid process states are stored and are compared, upon the occurrence of a reset event, with a subsequent valid process state that has been established after the re-initialization of the process controller. Upon comparison of the previously established process state, including the associated history information to the process state established after occurrence of the reset event on the basis of the newly gathered history information, it is decided whether or not a reset of the process controller has been necessary. If it is assessed that a reset has not been necessary, process control is continued on the basis of the previously established process state and possibly the presently valid process state and the relevant history information. In this way, process accuracy rapidly converges after a reset event has occurred and resetting the process controller is only performed in cases where the reset event has entailed a significant change in any of the involved process components.
Schnurr et al. USPGPUB 2014/0208172 teaches a data processing system (1) is programmed with an interface (2) for capturing events which arise, and a process engine (3) for automatically monitoring captured events to identify completion of steps, each comprising a plurality of events linked by dependency relationships; and to identify completion of processes, each comprising a plurality of steps linked by dependency relationships. Software functions (5) execute in response to output of the process engine (3). The process engine (3) processes events to recognise a plurality of potential steps, but terminates other potential steps when completion of a step is determined. The process engine (3) processes steps to recognise a plurality of potential processes, but terminates other potential process when completion of a process is determined. The dependency relationships include Boolean AND operators and Boolean OR operators. There is a discrete start event for each step and a discrete start step for each process. The engine executes a plurality of processes simultaneously, applying captured events in real time to relevant steps, some events being applied to a plurality of steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119