DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed December 23, 2024. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of improper content and improper length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of simulating industrial facilities for control. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance using exemplary claim 1:
1. A method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:
at each of a plurality of time steps during a task episode: receiving, from a computer simulator of an industrial facility, measurements representing a current state of the industrial facility (see at least paragraphs [0027-0028]; measurements from sensors);
generating, from the measurements, an observation; providing the observation as input to a control policy for controlling the industrial facility (see at least paragraphs [0025, 0042]);
receiving, as output from the control policy, an action for controlling one or more setpoints of the industrial facility; generating, from the action, one or more control inputs for the one or more setpoints of the industrial facility; and providing, as input to the computer simulator, (i) the one or more control inputs and (ii) current values for one or more configuration parameters of the computer simulator to cause the computer simulator to generate, as output, new measurements representing a new state of the industrial facility for a subsequent time step (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is directed to a process, which satisfies step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the new two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless it: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of simulating industrial facilities for control, which is an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes and mathematical concepts groupings. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
The limitations collectively amount to collecting data, analyzing the data using rules and mathematical relationships and adjusting a parameter based on the analysis. Courts have held similar subject matter abstract: See Alice Corp v CLS Bank International; Electric Power Group, LLC; Flook. In particular, Flook involved updating alarm limits based on calculations, which is analogous to providing an output to the one or more control inputs to generate new output measurements.
The October 2019 Update explains on pages 7-8 that claims do recite a mental process when the claim limitations can practically be performed in the human mind. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include Electric Power Group, LLC which was directed to collection information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and Classen which was directed to collecting and comparing known information. The courts have also found that claims that require a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (page 8 of the October 2019 Update). The Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not recite unconventional hardware, or a specific algorithmic improvement, or specific algorithmic structure beyond result oriented functional language.
The remaining claims are rejected under similar grounds and do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, it is noted that the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Regarding computer functions, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states: The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
ii. Shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
iv. Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017);
v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
vi. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
vii. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al (US 2019/0163215).
As per claim 1, Cheng et al teach a method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:
at each of a plurality of time steps during a task episode: receiving, from a computer simulator of an industrial facility, measurements representing a current state of the industrial facility (see at least paragraphs [0027-0028]; measurements from sensors);
generating, from the measurements, an observation; providing the observation as input to a control policy for controlling the industrial facility (see at least paragraphs [0025, 0042]);
receiving, as output from the control policy, an action for controlling one or more setpoints of the industrial facility; generating, from the action, one or more control inputs for the one or more setpoints of the industrial facility; and providing, as input to the computer simulator, (i) the one or more control inputs and (ii) current values for one or more configuration parameters of the computer simulator to cause the computer simulator to generate, as output, new measurements representing a new state of the industrial facility for a subsequent time step (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 2, Cheng et al teach wherein generating, from the measurements, an observation comprises: adding noise to the measurements (see at least paragraph [0065]).
As per claim 3, Cheng et al teach wherein generating, from the action, one or more control inputs for the one or more setpoints of the industrial facility comprises: adding noise to one or more control inputs defined by the observation (see at least paragraphs [0046, 0065, 0097]).
As per claim 4, Cheng et al teach identifying a scenario for the task episode, wherein the scenario specifies, for each of the plurality of time steps, a respective modification to be applied to one or more of: one or more of the configuration parameters, one or more of the control inputs, or one or more of the measurements (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 5, Cheng et al teach wherein the scenario specifies a modification to be applied to one or more of the configuration parameters, wherein the method further comprises: sampling a configuration for the task episode that specifies respective initial values for each of the configuration parameters, and at each time step: for each of the one or more configuration parameters, applying the modification specified by the scenario for the time step to the initial value for the configuration parameter to generate the current value for the configuration parameter (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 6, Cheng et al teach wherein the scenario specifies a modification to be applied to one or more of the measurements, and wherein generating, from the measurements, an observation comprises: for each of the one or more measurements, applying the modification specified by the scenario for the time step to the measurement (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 7, Cheng et al teach wherein the scenario specifies a modification to be applied to one or more of the control inputs, and wherein generating, from the action, one or more control inputs comprises: for each of the one or more control inputs, applying the modification specified by the scenario for the time step to the control input (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 8, Cheng et al teach wherein the computer simulator is a deterministic simulator of dynamics of the industrial facility (see at least paragraph [0004-0006]).
As per claim 9, Cheng et al teach training the control policy based at least on the task episode; and after the training, deploying the control policy for controlling the industrial facility (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 10, Cheng et al teach evaluating the control policy based at least on the task episode; and after the evaluating, deploying the control policy for controlling the industrial facility (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 11, Cheng et al teach receiving, after deploying the control policy and from the industrial facility, measurements of a current state of the industrial facility; generating, from the measurements of the current state of the industrial facility, a second observation; providing the second observation as input to the control policy for controlling the industrial facility; receiving, as output from the control policy, a second action for controlling one or more setpoints of the industrial facility; generating, from the second action, second one or more control inputs for the one or more setpoints of the industrial facility; and controlling the one or more setpoints of the industrial facility based on the second one or more control inputs (see at least paragraph [0025, 0042, 0068, 0097-0099]).
As per claim 12, Cheng et al teach controlling, using a second control policy, a second industrial facility in order to generate a data set; wherein the computer simulator of the industrial facility is configured to generate the measurements representing a current and new state of the industrial facility based upon the data set (see at least paragraph [0042, 0068]).
Claims 14-21 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights