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 .
Claims 1-18, 29 and 31 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/24/25, 2/20/25, 1/6/25 and 3/27/24 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 5-18, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, independent claims 1, 29 and 31 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to data processing apparatus executing instruction to perform a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations in claim 1 “processing an input comprising the observation characterizing the current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device using a plasma confinement neural network, wherein the plasma confinement neural network has a plurality of network parameters and is configured to process the input comprising the observation in accordance with the network parameters to generate a magnetic control output that characterizes control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim further recites “one or more data processing apparatus for generating control signals for controlling a magnetic field for confining plasma in a chamber of a magnetic confinement device, generating the control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device based on the magnetic control output” which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra‐solution activities. Thus, additional elements go nothing beyond using the computer (data processing apparatus) as a tool to perform abstract idea into a technological environment- computer controlled for confining plasma. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements “obtaining an observation characterizing a current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device” amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding 29,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a system comprising computers.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations in claim 29 “processing an input comprising the observation characterizing the current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device using a plasma confinement neural network, wherein the plasma confinement neural network has a plurality of network parameters and is configured to process the input comprising the observation in accordance with the network parameters to generate a magnetic control output that characterizes control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim further recites “one or more computers; and
one or more storage devices communicatively coupled to
the one or more computers, wherein the one or more
storage devices store instructions that, when executed
by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations for generating control signals for controlling a magnetic field for confining plasma in a chamber of a magnetic confinement device, generating the control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device based on the magnetic control output” which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra‐solution activities. Thus, additional elements go nothing beyond using the computers as a tool to perform abstract idea into a technological environment- computer controlled for confining plasma. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements “obtaining an observation characterizing a current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device” amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claim 29 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding 31,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer storage media.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations in claim 31 “processing an input comprising the observation characterizing the current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device using a plasma confinement neural network, wherein the plasma confinement neural network has a plurality of network parameters and is configured to process the input comprising the observation in accordance with the network parameters to generate a magnetic control output that characterizes control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim further recites “One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations for generating control signals for controlling a magnetic field for confining plasma in a chamber of a magnetic confinement device, generating the control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device based on the magnetic control output” which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra‐solution activities. Thus, additional elements go nothing beyond using the computers as a tool to perform abstract idea into a technological environment- computer controlled for confining plasma. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements “obtaining an observation characterizing a current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device” amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claim 31 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 5-18:
Dependent claims 5-18, they depend on claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of claim 1. The claims 5-18 recited other new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are mental processes based abstract idea. Please note that a narrower abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case since the limitations of the claim 5-18 are more narrowing the abstract idea of the claim 1. Therefore, the claims 5-18 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. Furthermore, the claims 5-18 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. The claims 5-18 are not patent eligible.
6. Examiner's note: To qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the particular machine to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-4, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by McNamara et al. (McNamara), US publication no. 2020/0168352 A11.
As per claim 1, McNamara teaches a method performed by one or more data processing apparatus for generating control signals for controlling a magnetic field for confining plasma in a chamber of a magnetic confinement device [figures 1, 2; para 20, 21], the method comprising, at each of a plurality of time steps:
obtaining an observation characterizing a current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device [para 22];
processing an input comprising the observation characterizing the current state of the plasma in the chamber of the magnetic confinement device using a plasma confinement neural network [para 20, 22], wherein the plasma confinement neural network has a plurality of network parameters and is configured to process the input comprising the observation in accordance with the network parameters to generate a magnetic control output that characterizes control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device [para 21, 22]; and
generating the control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device based on the magnetic control output [para 22, 26].
McNamara teaches:
[0020] The inputs which can be used to control the plasma system ( e.g. external heating and current drive, position control coils, fueling systems, disruption control systems) often affect the plasma in a non-linear way which is coupled to other inputs. The machine learning approach, even before any of the sensors fail, will provide significant advantages in discovering the optimal ways to control these inputs to
achieve the desired plasma states. This is particularly important in a high gain burning plasma (as desired for fusion power generation) where the external energy inputs are a
relatively small proportion of the energy of the plasma, and so have a relatively small effect compared to non-burning plasmas. Determining the optimal way of using the various inputs may allow access to more advanced operating regimes and improve the overall device efficiency significantly.
[0021] FIG. 1 shows a schematic illustration of a fusion reactor control system. The reactor control system comprises primary sensors 10, which are configured to monitor
the state of the plasma. The primary sensors 10 may comprise magnetic diagnostics 11, spectroscopic instruments 12, optical sensors 13, bolometric systems 14, microwave diagnostics 15, or other suitable sensors. The reactor control system further comprises secondary sensors 20, which are configured to monitor other properties of the reactor. The secondary sensors 20 may comprise stress sensors 21, strain sensors 22, microphones 23, temperature sensors 24, neutron detectors 25, vibration sensors 26, or other suitable sensors. The reactor control system further comprises
plasma control inputs 30, which are configured to adjust the properties of the plasma, e.g. position, temperature and current. The plasma control inputs 30 may comprise inputs for magnetic field coils 31 (including both toroidal field coils 31a and poloidal field coils 31b in the case where the reactor is a tokamak), heating systems 32, current drive systems 33, fuel inputs 34 and other suitable inputs. Heating and current drive can be achieved by neural beams with a wide range of energy, intensity and direction and/or by electromagnetic radiation with a wide range of different techniques.
[0022] The reactor control system further comprises a controller 40, which receives readings from the primary sensors 10 and the secondary sensors 20, and controls the
plasma control inputs 30 on the basis of those readings in order to maintain the plasma in a desired state. The controller 40 is governed by a machine learning algorithm which is trained using the readings from the primary sensors 10, and configured such that when one or more of the primary sensors 10 fail, the controller can control the plasma on the basis of readings from the remaining primary sensors 10 and the secondary sensors 20.
[0026] In step S103, the plasma is controlled according to the control model. The plasma is controlled using plasma control inputs 30, on the basis of readings from the primary sensors 10 and/or the secondary sensors 20. While the control model is the initial control model, only the primary sensors 10 will be used.
As per claim 2, McNamara teaches the magnetic control output characterizes a respective voltage to be applied to each of a plurality of control coils of the magnetic confinement device [para 21, 26]. In summary, McNamara teaches the plasma is
controlled by the control output voltages of the coils of the tokamaks, such as by controlling in particular also the plasma shape, the feature of the control output being applied voltages of the specific shaping coils of the tokamak is obvious
As per claim 3, McNamara teaches the magnetic control output defines, for each of the plurality of control coils of the magnetic confinement device, a respective score distribution over a set of possible voltages that can be applied to the control coil [para 20, 21, 26].
As per claim 4, McNamara teaches of generating control signals for controlling the magnetic field of the magnetic confinement device based on the magnetic control output comprises, for each of the plurality of control coils of the magnetic confinement device: selecting a voltage from the respective score distribution over the set of possible voltages that can be applied to the control coil; and generating a control signal to cause the sampled voltage to be applied to the control coil [para 20, 21, 26]. In summary, McNamara teaches that selected voltages may applied to control coils in order to optimal way to achieve the desired plasma states to improve the overall device efficiency.
As to claim 29, basically are the corresponding elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 29 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 [figure 1; para 21, 22].
As to claim 31, directed to a computer storage medium storing the instructions to perform the method of steps executed by the system as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
9. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 5-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of records do not teach of determining, for each of the plurality of time steps, a reward for the time step that characterizes an error between: (i) the current state of the plasma, and (ii) a target state of the plasma; and training the neural network parameters of the plasma confinement neural network on the rewards using a reinforcement learning technique in claim 5;
the magnetic confinement device is a simulation of a magnetic confinement device, and further comprising, at a final time step of the plurality of time steps: determining that a physical feasibility constraint of the magnetic confinement device is violated at the time step; and terminating the simulation of the magnetic confinement device in response to determining that the physical feasibility constraint of the magnetic confinement device is violated at the time step in claim 13.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Fu, US patent no. 5841651, teaches a method for closed-loop adaptive control of spectrum producing plasma processes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 McNamara is cited by applicant.