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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 10/17/2023 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been amended. Claims 1-10 have been cancelled. Claims 11-22 have been newly added. Claims 11-22 are rejected herein. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 11-22 are directed to methods for simulating a chemical reaction, which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A:
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. The examiner submits that in view of MPEP 2106.04, the aforementioned claims recite mathematical concepts, specifically iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Regarding representative independent claim 11, the claim sets forth a method for constructing a model simulating a chemical reaction, in the following limitations:
using a training base, the training base comprising training input data and training output data of the chemical reaction, the training input and training output data being representative of mass fractions of the chemical species at an inlet and at an outlet of the chemical reaction respectively, comprising:
a.) creating an intermediate model of the simulation model using an artificial neural network comprising an input layer, at least one hidden layer and an output layer and creating the intermediate model using the training base; and
b.) creating the simulation model by using the intermediate model and using an additional layer after the output layer of the neural network, the additional layer being a linear operator applying a linear correction to the output data of the output layer of the artificial neural network to ensure mass conservation of chemical elements within the reactive system of the chemical species involved in the at least one chemical reaction.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to create computational models to manipulate input data. This arrangement amounts to mathematic concepts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims fail to recite any additional hardware elements.
Therefore, the language of the pending claims does not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claim 20 and dependent claims 12-19, and 21-22, also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
As stated above, the claims fail to recite any additional hardware elements.
As such, the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berlowitz et al (US 2014/0272627) in view of Horesh et al (US 2021/0271730).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model of at least one chemical reaction between chemical species within a reactive system, using a training base, the training base comprising training input data and training output data of the chemical reaction (see paragraph [0011] to Horesh et al), the training input and training output data being representative of mass fractions of the chemical species at an inlet and at an outlet of the chemical reaction respectively, comprising: a.) creating an intermediate model of the simulation model using an artificial neural network comprising an input layer, at least one hidden layer and an output layer and creating the intermediate model using the training base (see at least paragraph [0189] to Berlowitz et al); and b.) creating the simulation model by using the intermediate model and using an additional layer after the output layer of the neural network, the additional layer being a linear operator applying a linear correction to the output data of the output layer of the artificial neural network to ensure mass conservation of chemical elements within the reactive system of the chemical species involved in the at least one chemical reaction (see at least paragraph [0136] to Horesh et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method of integrated power integration and chemical production using fuel cells, as disclosed by Berlowitz et al and the system and method of multi-linear dynamical model reduction as taught by Horesh et al, in order to determine and maximize various parameters (see at least paragraph [0022] to Berlowitz et al) could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 11, wherein the additional layer is created by using a linear correction calculation which is applied to the output data of the output layer (see at least paragraph [0080] to Berlowitz et al).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 12, wherein the linear correction is calculated for a number of chemical species of the chemical reaction corresponding to the number of chemical elements used in the chemical reaction (see at least paragraph [0057] to Horesh et al).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 11, wherein synaptic weights of the artificial neural network are optimized after adding the additional layer by using the input and output data of the training base (see at least paragraph [0136] to Horesh et al).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 12, wherein synaptic weights of the artificial neural network are optimized after adding the additional layer by using the input and output data of the training base (see at least paragraph [0136] to Horesh et al).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 13, wherein synaptic weights of the artificial neural network are optimized after adding the additional layer by using the input and output data of the training base (see at least paragraph [0136] to Horesh et al).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 11, wherein the input and output data is determined before and after the chemical reaction or before and after a time interval of the chemical reaction (see at least paragraph [0060] to Horesh et al).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 11, wherein the input data are mass fractions of the chemical species involved in the at least one chemical reaction (see at least paragraph [0133] to Horesh et al).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art discloses a method of creating a simulation model as claimed in claim 11, wherein the output data are mass fractions of the chemical species or variations of the mass fractions of the chemical species involved in the at least one chemical reaction (see at least paragraph [0208] to Berlowitz et al).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art discloses a method of simulating at least one chemical reaction between chemical species within a reactive system, comprising: a.) creating a simulation model by using the method of creating a simulation model in accordance with claim 11; and b.) creating the simulation model to simulation of input data, the simulation input data being representative of mass fractions of the chemical species at the inlet of the chemical reaction (see at least paragraph [0189] to Berlowitz et al).
Regarding claim 21, the prior art discloses a method of simulation as claimed in claim 20, wherein the simulation model is created for a time interval, and applying the simulation model is reiterated for successive time intervals, and, upon each reiteration, the simulation input data is the simulation output data of a previous time interval (see at least paragraph [0051] to Horesh et al).
Regarding claim 22, the prior art discloses a simulation method as claimed in claim 20, wherein the chemical reaction is a chemical reaction within an energy conversion system comprising one of combustion in an engine, a chemical reaction in an electric battery, a chemical reaction in a fuel cell, and a chemical reaction in a system of transporting the chemical species (see at least paragraph [0023] to Berlowitz et al).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights