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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
With regards to all relevant claims, starting with Claim 1, the meaning of the limitation “the accretion cluster information comprises position information of one or more reference clusters, and one or more accretion clusters” is unclear. The specification defines the reference clusters as follows: “Further, a reference cluster refers to an area which shows no significant thermal difference in a low and high accretion condition of the kiln” which one of the ordinary skill in the art may understand as any and all accretion-level clusters that contradicts/ presents no difference with separately/further defined the “one or more accretion clusters”. The difference between these clusters is then unclear.
Fir the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner treated “reference clusters” as clusters with no or little/negligible accretion conditions.
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 1-15 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 processor implemented method, comprising: receiving, by an accretion monitoring system via one or more hardware processors, a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information; pre-processing, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, the real-time data using one or more pre-processing techniques to obtain a pre-processed real-time data; obtaining, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, an accretion cluster information based on the pre-processed real-time data using an accretion localization model, wherein the accretion cluster information comprises position information of one or more reference clusters, and one or more accretion clusters present in the rotary kiln; and computing, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, an accretion score for the rotary kiln based, at least in part, on the accretion cluster information and the pre-processed real-time data using an accretion scoring model, wherein the accretion score represents a real-time accretion condition of the rotary kiln.”
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 groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 6 and 11.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A processor implemented method, comprising: receiving, by an accretion monitoring system via one or more hardware processors, a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information;
In Claim 6: An accretion monitoring system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to: receive a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information;
In Claim 11: One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause: receiving, by an accretion monitoring system, a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as one or more hardware processors processor (Claim 1), a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions (Claim 6), and one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors (Claim 11) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite receiving… a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information (Claim 1), receive a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information (Claim 6) and receiving … a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information (Claim 11) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does 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) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements that recite displaying the accretion score and operable actions on a user device (Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 15) or determining temperature profile/mass flow rate/material quality data, design data, and/or ambient conditions (Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14) are recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashisht Narayanet Singh (US 20180106683), hereinafter ‘Singh’ in view of Kunihiko Tokutake et al. (US 4510807).
With regards to Claim 1, Singh discloses
A processor implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by an accretion monitoring system via one or more hardware processors, a real-time data associated with a rotary kiln, wherein the real-time data comprises one or more of: a kiln operation data, a material quality data, a kiln design data, a kiln maintenance data and a kiln ambient condition information (receiving, via one or more hardware processors, in real-time, a first plurality of temperature values of the plurality of distinct locations from a plurality of sensors. Each of the plurality of sensors are configured on the plurality of distinct locations on the outer surface of the iron kiln and are associated with a distinct sensor ID [0006]).
pre-processing, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, the real-time data using one or more pre-processing techniques to obtain a pre-processed real-time data (Fig.1, System 102; [0008, 0022]);
obtaining, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, an accretion cluster information based on the pre-processed real-time data using an accretion localization model (FIG. 5B, illustrates the positioning of the temperature sensors for determining the accretion shape at any given time at any circle as a cross section parallel to the iron kiln mouth 502. The fixed 8 temperature sensors (solid black points) on the circle provide surface temperature of the kiln at respective locations [0049]), wherein the accretion cluster information comprises position information of one or more reference clusters, and one or more accretion clusters present in the rotary kiln (FIG. 5C, illustrates determination of the accretion shape at any given two lines (top and bottom) as vertical cross section along with the iron kiln length 506 … Once the temperature of all distinct locations in consideration are known (measured or estimated), the system estimates thickness of the accretion formed on each such point based on surface temperature. Also, by joining the tips of thickness lines, shape of accretion at the two lines is created 508 [0050]; The location of the accretion 604 inside the iron kiln is illustrated along with the shape and size of the accretion [0053]); and
computing, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, probability of an accretion for the rotary kiln based, at least in part, on the accretion cluster information and the pre-processed real-time data using an accretion scoring model (The reference temperature is calculated as an Average Maximum Temperature (AMT) of the cylindrical body of the iron kiln. If the first plurality of temperature value at any distinct location on the surface of the cylindrical body of the iron kiln is determined to be less than or equal to the reference temperature value, then this may be indicative of a probability of an accretion being formed in that particular location/region [0045]; The changes in the iron kiln shell or outer surface temperatures are utilized to detect the shape, size and location of the accretion by a mathematical model. The system is also utilized to predict the growth trend in kiln accretion formation [0053]).
However, Singh does not specifically disclose the accretion cluster information comprises position information of one or more reference clusters and computing an accretion score for the rotary kiln wherein the accretion score represents a real-time accretion condition of the rotary kiln.
Tokutake discloses the accretion cluster information comprises position information of one or more reference clusters (When the deposit has a low density on the other hand, it is not reasonable to follow the above idea. Namely, it seems to be correct to make such a judgement that both deposit R and deposit D are little (Col.7, Lines 5-8; comparing it with a corresponding preset reference value thereof and similarly comparing the value of .rho.m with a corresponding preset reference value thereof and judging the value thereof or optionally further taking Ri into consideration, Claim 1); Fig.1, Locations D and R.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh in view of Tokutake to use position information of a reference cluster along with the accretion cluster to evaluate/diagnose/predict operational condition of a rotary kiln, while assigning/using an accretion score that characterizes probability of the accretion in the kiln (Singh [0045]) to present/display to a user device (Singh [0032]).
With regards to Claim 2, Singh additionally discloses displaying, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, the accretion score on a user device [0032].
With regards to Claim 5, Singh additionally discloses identifying, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, one or more operable actions to be recommended to a user; and displaying, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more operable actions on the user device (The user interface 210 displays the accretion graph generated by the system 200 to a site operator or user for further action [0032]), the one or more operable actions comprises change in operation of the rotary kiln (The system is also utilized to predict the growth trend in kiln accretion formation. The system enables the site operator to adjust the production of iron ore based on the accretion formation inside the iron kiln and thereby improving operational stability of the iron kiln [0053]).
However, Singh does not specifically disclose that one or more operable actions to be recommended to a user based on the accretion score using a predefined action recommendation technique.
Tokutake also discloses the one or more operable actions comprises change in operation of the rotary kiln (Therefore, when the amount of the deposit D or deposit R has been judged to be too much from the determination of Wi and .rho.m and either one of x and y is biasedly greater than the other, it is recommended to effect a change to the operation in such a direction as to reduce the formation of the deposit D or R and to contemplate a major change to the raw material having a greater degree of contribution, Col.7, Lines 42-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh in view of Tokutake to use one or more operable actions recommended to a user based on the accretion score using a predefined action recommendation technique as a simple way to communicate specific operational changes needed based on the score characteristic of probability of accretion such as discussed in Tokutake above.
With regards to Claim 6, Singh in view of Tokutake discloses the claim limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Singh additionally discloses a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory [0055] via the one or more communication interfaces (implied).
With regards to Claim 7, Singh in view of Tokutake discloses the claim limitations as discussed above in Claims 6 and 2.
With regards to Claim 10, Singh in view of Tokutake discloses the claim limitations as discussed above in Claims 6 and 3.
With regards to Claim 11, Singh in view of Tokutake discloses the claim limitations as discussed above in Claims 1 and 6.
With regards to Claim 12, Singh in view of Tokutake discloses the claim limitations as discussed above in Claims 11 and 2.
With regards to Claim 15, Singh in view of Tokutake discloses the claim limitations as discussed above in Claims 6 and 2.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 3-4, 8-9, and 13-14 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
However, in regards to Claims 3, 8, and 13, the claims differ from the closest prior art, either singularly or in combination, because the art fails to anticipate or render obvious extracting statistics information associated with each point of the plurality of points present in each of the accretion cluster and the reference cluster based on the HTM estimated for a reference point, wherein the statistics information comprises a plurality of HTM statistics, and wherein the plurality of HTM statistics comprises a radial HTM, an axial HTM, and a bulk HTM; normalizing, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, the plurality of HTM statistics associated with the one or more accretion clusters using the plurality of HTM statistics associated with the one or more reference clusters and the kiln operation data to obtain a plurality of normalized HTM statistics; estimating, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, an accretion probability score based on the plurality of normalized HTM statistics and the pre-processed real-time data using an accretion probability estimation model; and combining, by the accretion monitoring system via the one or more hardware processors, the accretion probability score and the plurality of normalized HTM statistics to obtain the accretion score for the rotary kiln, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nils Oertel et al. (US 20200191483) discloses a device for measuring the temperature in a rotary kiln through which material passes being heated to elevated temperatures including measurement of the accretion thickness (for correct measurement depth).
JEON JONG HAK (KR 20000043444) discloses that an accumulated position of coating ore is recognized by a temperature distribution measurer, and control data is input in a system controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights