DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 04/27/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts represent models of the operation of the industrial system. Further, the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception. and that: “Even if the Examiner is not persuaded under Step 2A - Prong One, the claims recite a combination of additional elements of collecting two sets of monitored data from sensors, generating model output data from inputting the first set of monitored data into initial representation of the operation of the industrial system, feeding the model output data and the second set of monitored data to a comparator that generates error signals representing a difference between members of the model output data and correlated members of the second set of monitored data, and transforming the initial representation into the refined representation based on reducing error signals between the modeled output data and the second set of monitored data. More specifically, the transformation includes iteratively varying parameters of the initial representation to reduce the error signals and a ratio of the second set of monitored (input) data and the model output data are set at 1:1 such that iterations of varying the parameter are reduced to increase computational efficiency of the processor operating said monitoring and control system to produce the refined representation to control the operation of said industrial system in real time”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims, as currently constructed, are clearly directed to a mathematical concept to arrive at a refined mathematical representation, as evidenced by the specification and do not recite anything that sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor integrate the recited abstract into a practical application, as asserted by the applicant. With regards to applicant’s assertions that: “Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in the operation of the industrial system. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved (or optimized) industrial system operation. The claims as a whole integrate the mental process into a practical application.”, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not recite anything that sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the recited abstract to a practical application. The Examiner further notes that merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785. The Examiner further notes that to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965. It is further noted that neither the claims nor the specification provides any manner by which said intended optimization could be achieved using the steps set forth by the claims, contrary to applicant’s assertions. With regards to the improvement’s arguments that: “Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in the operation of the industrial system. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved (or optimized) industrial system operation. The claims as a whole integrate the mental process into a practical application.”, the Examiner respectfully notes that the argued steps are clearly pre-solution data gathering and processing and do not in any way provide any improvement to a technological field, as asserted by the Applicant. In fact, there absolutely no way to improve the functionality of the general processor by collecting and processing in the way recited the claims nor is there recited by the claims that goes beyond the recited abstract. As per applicant’s assertions that: “The processor is modified by performing concrete steps to increase the computational efficiency to produce the refined representation to control the industrial system. The refined representation of the monitoring and control system, or related method of operating the same, can be applied to increase the computational efficiency of any processor to operate a real system such as any industrial system. As set forth in the previous Declaration by Dr. Allen, the monitoring and control system can be applied to and optimize any real system by creating the initial representations, receiving sets of input data, and using certain constraints to produce the refined presentations in real time to control the real system. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.”, the Examiner respectfully notes that, as previously pointed out, nowhere in the specification nor anywhere in the submitted Declaration is anything factual that accounts for the lack of written description for the claimed subject matter, as the Examiner has carefully reviewed the submitted document and asserts that none of the referred sections of the specification present any evidence that the claimed monitoring and control could be accomplished as claimed, as would clearly be agreed by a person in the art. It is further noted by the examiner that the use a particular system or device to create a mathematical model representation which is then refined it to arrive at a refined mathematical model is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. While not supported by the specification, the claimed controlling could clearly amount to post-solution activities and do not add anything meaningful to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are abstract as constructed. Regarding Applicant’s assertions that: “As set forth in the previous Declaration by Dr. Allen, the Examiner is taking the word "control" out of context. Having control over what is being learned as set forth in paragraph 43 and others is different than the monitoring and control as set forth in paragraph 69. The real-time monitoring and control in paragraph 69 is for the purposes of control of a real system such as an industrial system. Dr. Allen discloses several examples disclosed in the specification of monitoring and controlling real systems. (Declaration, 6.) Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, Dr. Allen is explaining how a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the different contexts of the term "control." And, again, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the "control" in paragraph 69 as controlling a real system such as an industrial system.” and that: “Thus, it is clear from the written description that the specification conveys that the inventor was in possession of the specific claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the present application. A person of ordinary skill in the art when reviewing the specification as a whole would come to the same conclusion”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the term control clearly has not been taken out of context as pointed out the applicant. The specification clearly fails to provide any means by which said monitoring and controlling could be achieved as intended by the applicant and thus clearly lacks supports for the limitations, contrary to applicant’s assertions. The Examiner further notes that while the word control is mentioned at least one time in some part of the disclosure, this again has absolutely nothing to do with the claimed limitations of “controlling an operation of an industrial system utilizing a refined representation of said operation of said industrial system” nor is there any use of a refined representation of any model used to control the operation of anything much less the operation of an industrial system as claimed by the applicant. Nowhere in the cited paragraphs nor anywhere in the disclosure is there anything to supports the claims controlling as intended by the applicant. In fact, the refined mathematical model representation being utilized to control anything much less an industrial system is clearly not supported by the disclosure, as intended by the applicant. The dependent claims inherit the same defect based on similar recitations and/or dependencies upon the base claims. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been maintained. Similarly, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has also been maintained, as neither the claims nor the specification provides any means by which said monitoring/control could be accomplished as claimed and the Declaration fails to provide anything to support applicant’s assertions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claims 1-20 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.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) method of operating a monitoring and control system…, comprising: The further step of: “generates error signals representing a difference between members of said model output data and correlated members of said second set of monitored data”; and “producing said refined ” under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship in which said parameters of initial mathematical model could be adjusted to arrive at a refined mathematical model representation. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea to arrive at a refined mathematical model, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as “a memory”, “a processor”, “a comparator”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 81-86, and fig.15) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para 83) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; The step of: “providing an initial under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities to gather and process data using generic computer components and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and the limitation of “controlling an operation of an industrial system utilizing a refined mathematical representation of said operation of said industrial system” could amount to post-solution activities and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; it is further noted that to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965, and thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a processor”, “a comparator”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 81-86, and fig.15) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para 83) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4);In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 The step of: “providing an initial under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities to gather and process data using generic computer components and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and the limitation of “controlling an operation of an industrial system utilizing a refined mathematical representation of said operation of said industrial system” could amount to post-solution activities and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; it is further noted that to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965, and thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-10, 11-20 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations (claims 2 and 12) “wherein said sensors collectively sense data pertaining to use in said industrial system of different types of power, different labor skills, and/or different raw materials” [(mere data gathering)]; (3 and 13) “wherein controlling said operation of said industrial system comprises utilizing said refined (claims 4 and 14) “wherein controlling said operation of said industrial system comprises utilizing said refined [(post-solution activities)]; (claims 5 and 15); “wherein said iteratively varying said parameter of said at least one of said combination of terms includes setting a coefficient of each of said combinations of terms to a value between 0 and 1 such that a sum of all coefficients equals 1” [(mathematical concept)]; (claims 6 and 16), “wherein said iterations are reduced by an order of magnitude compared to an artificial neural network approach” (claims 7 and 17),” wherein said order of magnitude is ten” [(mathematical concept)]; (claims 8 and 18) “wherein said refined (claims 9 and 19); “wherein said state includes that said machine is good-as-new, operable with minor deterioration, operable with major deterioration and inoperable, and said action to said machine includes do nothing, overhaul and replace” [(Mental process)]; (claims 10 and 20); “wherein: if said state of said machine is operable with major deterioration and said action is overhaul said machine then return said state of said machine to operable with minor deterioration; and if said state of said machine is operable with minor deterioration, operable with major deterioration or inoperable, and said action is replace said machine then return said state of said machine to good-as-new” [(Mental process)], amount to pre/post-solution activities and/or mathematical concept similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6.1 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to provide any supports for the limitations of: “controlling an operation of an industrial system utilizing a refined representation of said operation of said industrial system, nor is there any support on how to increase computational efficiency of said… to produce said refined representation much less to control operation of said real industrial system, as recited in claims as recited in claims 1 and 11. In fact, it is clear from the specification that the refined model is not used in any way to do anything much less to control operation of an industrial system nor is there any monitoring and/or controlling operation of anything in the specification much less using said refined representation. There is also absolutely no evidenced of: “wherein controlling said operation of said industrial system comprises utilizing said refined representation to optimize production of different products produced by said industrial system” (claim 3). “wherein controlling said operation of said industrial system comprises utilizing said refined representation to predict non-optimal operation of a component of said industrial system” (claim 4) nor any of the limitations pertaining to claims 8-10”, as the specification mainly focus on constructing the mathematical model and refine it by adjusting certain parameters iteratively, and does not in any way use of the refined mathematical model to control anything much less a an industrial system, as recited throughout the claims. The claim(s) clearly contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims provide for a method and system for operating a monitoring and control system, comprising: “controlling an operation of an industrial system utilizing a refined representation of said operation of said industrial system”, the specification fails to describe the claimed subject matter to enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
7. 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.
7.1 Claims 1-20 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. The claims recite a method operating a monitoring and control system, including “controlling operation of an industrial system …; neither the claims nor the specification set forth any steps by which operation of said industrial system could be controlled using said refined model as intended, nor any manner by which the operating of a monitoring and control system could be accomplished, and a person of skilled in the art would not look to the specification or understand how said claimed refined model could be used to control anything much less operation of an industrial system, as intended. The dependent claims inherit the same defect either based on similar recitations and/or dependencies the base claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested, in response to this office action.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
8.1 Harvey (USPG_PUB No. 20190377306 A1) teaches a building-automation system controller for management and control of energy, thermal, and functional systems and subsystems thereof utilizing predictive control loops.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached on 571-272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights