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 1-9 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 1-9 are directed to a 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 for detecting and warning of operational failures, comprising the steps:
a) Step 1—Estimation of the parameters of the time series ARIMA model shown in the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1);
b) Step 2—Prediction of reactor pressure loss based on the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+0Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1);
c) Step 3—Calculate the difference between the pressure loss values predicted by the model and measured in the plant according to the equation
DifΔP=ΔPplant−ΔPmodel (Equation 2);
d) Step 4—Preparation of the control chart according to the equation
MR(t)=|DifΔP(t)−DifΔP(t−1)| (Equation 3) and equation
LSC = 3 MR/1,128 (Equation 4 );
e) Step 5—Issuance of the alert level according to the following criteria:
Level 0: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is lower than the value in Equation (4); or
Level 1: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in equation DifΔP(t) > 3MR/1,128 (Equation 5 ) and lower than that in equation
DifΔP(t) > 16,5 MR/1,1281 (Equation 6)
or Level 2: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (6) and lower than that in the equation
DifΔP(t) > 30 MR/1,1281 (Equation 7);
or Level 3: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (7).
Step 2A Prong 1:
“a) Step 1—Estimation of the parameters of the time series ARIMA model shown in the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1)” is directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“b) Step 2—Prediction of reactor pressure loss based on the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+0Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1)” is directed to math.
“c) Step 3—Calculate the difference between the pressure loss values predicted by the model and measured in the plant according to the equation
DifΔP=ΔPplant−ΔPmodel (Equation 2)” is directed to math.
“d) Step 4—Preparation of the control chart according to the equation
MR(t)=|DifΔP(t)−DifΔP(t−1)| (Equation 3) and equation LSC = 3 MR/1,128 (Equation 4 ) ” is directed to math.
“e) Step 5—Issuance of the alert level according to the following criteria:
Level 0: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is lower than the value in Equation (4); or Level 1: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in equation DifΔP(t) > 3MR/1,128 (Equation 5 ) and lower than that in equation DifΔP(t) > 16,5 MR/1,1281 (Equation 6); or Level 2: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (6) and lower than that in the equation DifΔP(t) > 30 MR/1,1281 (Equation 7); or Level 3: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (7)” is direct to mental step of outputting result of levels.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “b) Step 2—Prediction of reactor pressure loss based on the equation ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+0Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1); c) Step 3—Calculate the difference between the pressure loss values predicted by the model and measured in the plant according to the equation DifΔP=ΔPplant−ΔPmodel (Equation 2); d) Step 4—Preparation of the control chart according to the equation MR(t)=|DifΔP(t)−DifΔP(t−1)| (Equation 3) and equation LSC = 3 MR/1,128 (Equation 4 )” 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:
“A method for detecting and warning of operational failures, comprising the steps” recited in the preamble 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)).
“a) Step 1—Estimation of the parameters of the time series ARIMA model shown in the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1)” 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)).
“b) Step 2—Prediction of reactor pressure loss based on the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+0Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1)” 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)).
“c) Step 3—Calculate the difference between the pressure loss values predicted by the model and measured in the plant according to the equation
DifΔP=ΔPplant−ΔPmodel (Equation 2)” 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)).
“d) Step 4—Preparation of the control chart according to the equation
MR(t)=|DifΔP(t)−DifΔP(t−1)| (Equation 3) and equation LSC = 3 MR/1,128 (Equation 4 ) ” 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)).
“e) Step 5—Issuance of the alert level according to the following criteria:
Level 0: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is lower than the value in Equation (4); or Level 1: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in equation DifΔP(t) > 3MR/1,128 (Equation 5 ) and lower than that in equation DifΔP(t) > 16,5 MR/1,1281 (Equation 6); or Level 2: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (6) and lower than that in the equation DifΔP(t) > 30 MR/1,1281 (Equation 7); or Level 3: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (7)” 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:
“A method for detecting and warning of operational failures, comprising the steps” recited in the preamble 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)).
“a) Step 1—Estimation of the parameters of the time series ARIMA model shown in the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1)” 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)).
“b) Step 2—Prediction of reactor pressure loss based on the equation
ΔP(t)=ΔP(t−1)+a+b(1)*[ΔP(t−1)−ΔP(t−2)]+b(2)*[ΔP(t−2)−ΔP(t−3)]−e(t)−c(1)*e(t−1)+0Cons_H.sub.2*f_Cons_H.sub.2+F_DD*f_F_DD+F_GOK*f_F_GOK+F_load*f_F_load+F_GAS*f_F_GAS+WABT*f_WABT (Equation 1)” 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)).
“c) Step 3—Calculate the difference between the pressure loss values predicted by the model and measured in the plant according to the equation
DifΔP=ΔPplant−ΔPmodel (Equation 2)” 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)).
“d) Step 4—Preparation of the control chart according to the equation
MR(t)=|DifΔP(t)−DifΔP(t−1)| (Equation 3) and equation LSC = 3 MR/1,128 (Equation 4 ) ” 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)).
“e) Step 5—Issuance of the alert level according to the following criteria:
Level 0: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is lower than the value in Equation (4); or Level 1: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in equation DifΔP(t) > 3MR/1,128 (Equation 5 ) and lower than that in equation DifΔP(t) > 16,5 MR/1,1281 (Equation 6); or Level 2: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (6) and lower than that in the equation DifΔP(t) > 30 MR/1,1281 (Equation 7); or Level 3: If the value obtained in Equation (2) is higher than the value in Equation (7)” 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.
Regarding claim 2, “detecting and predicting operational failures in hydrotreatment units” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 3, “monitoring pressure loss in hydrotreatment reactors in hydrotreatment units” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 4, “being based on the ARIMA model and using exogenous variables such as H.sub.2 consumption (Cons_H.sub.2), DD current flow (F_DD), coke (F_GOK), load (F_load), gas (F_GAS) and reaction WABT (WABT)” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the parameters are estimated with data from the initial days of the plant itself, more specifically, data from 10 days onwards can be used” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the behavior of the monitored variable is evaluated by the Shewhart control chart or another” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 7, “wherein if the unit presents pressure loss problems, level 1, 2 or 3 alerts are issued” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the reactors are continuous flow type reactors, fluidized bed, drip bed reactors and/or continuous stirred tank reactors” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Regarding claim 9, “using the exogenous variables most suitable for the system wherein the reactors are continuous flow type reactors, fluidized bed, drip bed reactors and/or continuous stirred tank reactors” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It 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)).
Hence the claims 1-9 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:
Cheung el al. (US 7,653,512) disclose a precision diagnostic system for the failure protection and predictive maintenance of vacuum pumps, comprising: a dedicated signal conditioning unit for amplifying the inlet and exhaust pressure transducers, supply current probes to the booster and dry pumps, mechanical vibration sensors and measurement microphones installed at the middle of the booster and dry pumps; a high-speed, multi-channel data acquisition (DAQ) system adequate for collecting the mechanical vibration and sound pressure signals with very high frequency components up to 10.about.20 kHz; and a dual-processed sever-class PC system with the sufficient performance capacity of 1) collecting the sampled data of all measured state variables from the DAQ system in a real-time without any loss of data transfer; 2) evaluating the root-mean-square values of the mechanical vibration and sound pressure signals; 3) determining the time series of the maximum and minimum values of said measured state variables from each set of consecutively sampled signals for the idle and different gas-loaded conditions; 4) estimating the pump operation characteristic values comprising the best-fitted model parameters and the mean and peak values of said measured state variables using parameter model based active diagnostic algorithms; 5) and evaluating the pump performance indicators of the newly installed vacuum pump using an in-situ evaluation method; and storing the pump operation characteristic values and the pump performance indicators of the newly installed vacuum pump in the vacuum pump maintenance database; and comparing the values of the estimated pump operation characteristic values and the evaluated pump performance indicators of said newly installed vacuum pump stored in the vacuum pump maintenance database with the estimated pump operation characteristic values and the evaluated pump performance indicators of said newly installed vacuum pump under an abnormal operation condition in order to determine pump replacement.
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
