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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The phrase “previously predicted” is unclear because the claim does not specify previous relative to what event or step.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The phrase “storing instructions performing prediction related to a polycondensation reaction” is grammatically unclear because instructions do not themselves “perform” unless executed by a processor. To overcome the rejection, examiner suggests amending the claim as storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the information processing device to perform prediction…
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 1-9 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 performing prediction related to a polycondensation reaction, the method being executed by an information processing device, and comprising: training a prediction model based on actual data comprising a plurality of explanatory factors and an objective factor that are related to the polycondensation reaction; and predicting, with the prediction model, the objective factor during the polycondensation reaction based on the explanatory factors related to the polycondensation reaction, wherein the explanatory factors include a plurality of feature values obtained by a clustering analysis of time-series data from a plurality of measurement instruments at a dehydration temperature rising process, and the objective factor includes at least either a viscosity or an acid value.
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 grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “predicting, with the prediction model, the objective factor during the polycondensation reaction based on the explanatory factors related to the polycondensation reaction, wherein the explanatory factors include a plurality of feature values obtained by a clustering analysis of time-series data from a plurality of measurement instruments at a dehydration temperature rising process, and the objective factor includes at least either a viscosity or an acid value” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 9.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 8: information processing device, control unit;
In Claim 9: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, information processing device, processor
The additional element in the preamble of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, information processing device, control unit, processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do 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).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 and 112(b) rejections set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Shimojo et al. (WO2022202978A1, 2022-08-04) teaches a method for performing prediction related to a polycondensation reaction executed by an information processing device (pg. 13, 4th para.; pg. .12, last para.), the method comprising: a step of training a prediction model based on actual data comprising a plurality of explanatory factors and an objective factor related to the polycondensation reaction (pg. 11-13: (image) machine learning unit); and a step of predicting the objective factor during the polycondensation reaction based on the objective factor includes at least either a viscosity or an acid value (pg. 11, last paragraph). Shimojo fails to teach the explanatory factors related to the polycondensation reaction by the prediction model, wherein the explanatory factors include a plurality of feature values obtained by clustering analysis of time-series data from a plurality of measurement instruments at a dehydration temperature rising process. Kamo (WO2022163035A1, 2022-08-04), a related reference, teaches similar limitations, but also fails to rectify the disclosed untaught limitation. It is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of its limitations would be allowed.
Claim 8 and 9 includes analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 1, an is, therefore, along with its dependencies, for similar rationale as disclosed above, allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 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 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 J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights