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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-14 are directed to a method, claims 15-18 are directed to using a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, direct a processor of a computing device to perform the method, and claim 20 is directed to using a system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method comprising:
determining, by a batch management system, that a batch generated in an industrial process is anomalous at a sample point k during the batch, wherein the batch is ongoing;
determining, by the batch management system, a process variable of the industrial process based on a variable contribution of the process variable towards the batch being anomalous at the sample point k during the batch;
determining, by the batch management system, a recommended value of the process variable based on an anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of an assessment batch, wherein
the assessment batch is created based on one or more samples of the batch at the sample point k and the recommended value of the process variable, and
the anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch is determined based on a T-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k and a Q-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch in a principal component analysis (PCA) model corresponding to the sample point k of the industrial process; and
adjusting, by the batch management system, the industrial process based on the recommended value of the process variable.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations of “determining, by a batch management system, that a batch generated in an industrial process is anomalous at a sample point k during the batch, wherein the batch is ongoing; determining, by the batch management system, a process variable of the industrial process based on a variable contribution of the process variable towards the batch being anomalous at the sample point k during the batch; determining, by the batch management system, a recommended value of the process variable based on an anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of an assessment batch; and adjusting, by the batch management system, the industrial process based on the recommended value of the process variable”. All of these limitation(s) but for the recitations of "by a batch management system " are considered an abstract idea based exception because they, as drafted, cover steps which under BRI can be practically performed in human's mind at most with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than the element of "by a batch management system ", everything in the claim 1 can be practically performed in the human's mind via user's observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
For example, the limitation covers calculating of two mathematical values, namely T2-metric and Q-metric for a data set which can be with small sample numbers such as with 4-5 samples. Human's mind can perform (evaluate) simple mathematical operations with the aid of pen and paper and plug those values in the equations discussed in para. 0103 and para. 0108 to calculate T2 metric value and Q-metric value.
The limitation of determining, by the batch management system, a recommended value of the process variable based on an anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of an assessment batch covers combining/using of the T2 value and Q-metric value or choosing one of them that is higher (see claim 3). The limitation requires concluding of the anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of an assessment batch.
The step of “adjusting, by the batch management system, the industrial process based on the recommended value of the process variable” is directed to math because when the batch management system adjusts the industrial process, it uses math at multiple levels: process variable is mathematical data, control algorithms (the mat engine), optimization and adjustment: the system uses these mathematical’ equations to decide exactly how much to adjust.
Accordingly, all the steps can be practically performed in human's mind, and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. While the limitations of steps recite that they are performed by "by a batch management system", the system is recited at high-level of generality such that it is merely used to tie a generic computer element with the abstract idea. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (as in this case of "by a batch management system ") then they fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the step of " determining, by the batch management system, a recommended value of the process variable based on an anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of an assessment batch, wherein the assessment batch is created based on one or more samples of the batch at the sample point k and the recommended value of the process variable, and the anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch is determined based on a T-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k and a Q-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch in a principal component analysis (PCA) model corresponding to the sample point k of the industrial process; and adjusting, by the batch management system, the industrial process based on the recommended value of the process variable” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“determining, by a batch management system, that a batch generated in an industrial process is anomalous at a sample point k during the batch, wherein the batch is ongoing” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by the batch management system, a process variable of the industrial process based on a variable contribution of the process variable towards the batch being anomalous at the sample point k during the batch” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by the batch management system, a recommended value of the process variable based on an anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of an assessment batch, wherein the assessment batch is created based on one or more samples of the batch at the sample point k and the recommended value of the process variable, and the anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch is determined based on a T-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k and a Q-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch in a principal component analysis (PCA) model corresponding to the sample point k of the industrial process” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“adjusting, by the batch management system, the industrial process based on the recommended value of the process variable” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Step 2B:
“determining, by a batch management system, that a batch generated in an industrial process is anomalous at a sample point k during the batch, wherein the batch is ongoing” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by the batch management system, a process variable of the industrial process based on a variable contribution of the process variable towards the batch being anomalous at the sample point k during the batch” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by the batch management system, a recommended value of the process variable based on an anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of an assessment batch, wherein the assessment batch is created based on one or more samples of the batch at the sample point k and the recommended value of the process variable, and the anomaly metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch is determined based on a T-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k and a Q-statistic metric corresponding to the sample point k of the assessment batch in a principal component analysis (PCA) model corresponding to the sample point k of the industrial process” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“adjusting, by the batch management system, the industrial process based on the recommended value of the process variable” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15 cites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed, direct a processor of a computing device to perform a method. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 20 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system, which is set up to implement a method as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 20 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 20.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamanaka et al. (WO 2020054850 A1) disclose system, computer, and method comprising: determining, by a batch management system (computer or processor of support device 2a/2 of figs.1/9), that a batch generated in an industrial process ("advanced sewage treatment process 1" of fig. 1/9) is anomalous.; determining a T²-statistic metric and a Q- statistic metric for each of a plurality of principal component analysis (PCA) models ("When principal component analysis (PCA) used for the MSPC is used, the time- series data 5 X can be decomposed as in the following Expression (1)"] associated with the industrial process, wherein each PCA model of the plurality of PCA models corresponds to data collected at a respective time in the industrial process ([008, 033, 043-045, 055]); determining, by the anomaly detection system, an anomaly metric of the batch based on the T² statistic metric [value using the equation (4) of para. 043] and the Q-statistic metric [value using the equation (5) of para. 043] of the batch for each respective PCA model of the plurality of PCA models ([045, 053, 055, 063]).
Perez et al. (US 20180087790) discloses an anomaly computer-implemented method in an industrial process comprising: determining, ("index calculator 222 acquires an index indicating soundness of a present process as a calculation result". The either the T2 or Q statistics or sum of those can be used as "used as a process soundness index"), by the anomaly detection system, that the batch is anomalous based on at least one of the anomaly metric of the batch; and ([085-086, 094, 096, 0105]); determining, by an anomaly detection system (diagnostics system 502) and for a batch generated in the industrial process, a pluralities of T²-statistic metric and a Q- statistic metric for each of a plurality of principal component analysis (PCA) models ("Each of the PCA models can represent a different operating state and can be generated using a different set of samples x") associated with the industrial process, wherein each PCA model of the plurality of PCA models (e.g., "a PCA model representing operating state k" and "a PCA model representing operating state j") corresponds to data collected at a respective time (each model is for each state and each state is for different set of samples being collected. Thus, each PCA model correspond to respective time at which the samples were collected as shown in figs. 15- 16) in the industrial process ([060, 0128, 0137, 0142, 0278]); determining, by the anomaly detection system, an anomaly metric of the batch based on the T2 statistic metrics ("may calculate a fault detection index I(x) for a new sample of the monitored variables") and the Q statistic metric of the batch for each respective PCA model of the plurality of PCA models ([0177, 0129, 0279]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights