DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 12/04/2023.
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are independent Claims.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 2023-048922 filed in JAPAN on 03/24/2023, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements filed (12/04/2023 and 06/03/2025) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
5. The drawings filed 12/04/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit” (in Claim 1) .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-4:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-4 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“training a prediction model based on actual data comprising a plurality of explanatory factors and an objective factor that are related to the addition polymerization reaction” and “predicting, with the prediction model, the objective factor during the addition polymerization reaction based on the explanatory factors related to the addition polymerization 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 temperature rising process and a dropwise addition process, and the objective factor includes at least either a nonvolatile content (NV) or a solution viscosity” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“the method being executed by an information processing device” (this additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “the explanatory factors include a theoretical value in a reaction physics model” merely describes in generic terms the intended functions of the “explanatory factors” thus is considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 1, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the addition polymerization reaction is an addition polymerization reaction of an acrylic” merely describes in generic terms the intended functions of the “addition polymerization reaction” thus is considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 1, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “the prediction model is a neural network model including; an input layer; an intermediate layer; and an output layer, and a coefficient of an activation function of the intermediate layer is larger than a coefficient of an activation function of the output layer” merely describes in generic terms the intended functions of the “prediction model” thus is considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 1, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis
Claim 5 is directed to a device and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 5 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“trains a prediction model based on actual data comprising a plurality of explanatory factors and an objective factor that are related to the addition polymerization reaction” and “predicts, with the prediction model, the objective factor during the addition polymerization reaction based on the explanatory factors related to the addition polymerization reaction, and 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 temperature rising process and a dropwise addition process, and the objective factor includes at least either a nonvolatile content (NV) or a solution viscosity” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 5 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“the information processing device comprising: a control unit” (this additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis
Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 6 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“training a prediction model based on actual data comprising a plurality of explanatory factors and an objective factor that are related to the addition polymerization reaction” and “predicting, with the prediction model, the objective factor during the addition polymerization reaction based on the explanatory factors related to the addition polymerization reaction, 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 temperature rising process and a dropwise addition process, and the objective factor includes at least either a nonvolatile content (NV) or a solution viscosity.” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 5 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, “instructions”, “an information processing device” and “a processor” (these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HARTMAN et al. (US 20210060514).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, 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.
As to Claim 1:
HARTMAN teaches a method for performing prediction related to an addition polymerization reaction ([0005-0007]), 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 addition polymerization reaction ([0032-0033]); and
predicting, with the prediction model, the objective factor during the addition polymerization reaction based on the explanatory factors related to the addition polymerization reaction ([0039-0040]), 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 temperature rising process and a dropwise addition process, and the objective factor includes at least either a nonvolatile content (NV) or a solution viscosity ([0046-0053]).
As to Claim 2:
HARTMAN teaches the explanatory factors include a theoretical value in a reaction physics model ([0084]).
As to Claim 3:
HARTMAN teaches the addition polymerization reaction is an addition polymerization reaction of an acrylic ([0027], [0029], and 0046-0047]).
As to Claim 4:
HARTMAN teaches the prediction model is a neural network model including; an input layer; an intermediate layer; and an output layer, and a coefficient of an activation function of the intermediate layer is larger than a coefficient of an activation function of the output layer ([0027-0028] and [0032-0033]).
As to Claim 5:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 5 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 5 is a system Claim and Claim 1 is a method Claim.
As to Claim 6:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 6 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 6 is a computer-readable recording medium Claim and Claim 1 is a method Claim.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights