CTNF 18/924,176 CTNF 90003 DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 May 2026 has been entered. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 19 May 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1, 10, 18 have been amended. Claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are original / previously presented. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Response to Arguments Regarding the Applicant’s argument filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “the claims, as amended and presented herein, cannot be grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity as alleged in the Office Action, because the claimed features do not recite fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Here, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims cannot be said to be human activity, because the claims are unrelated to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The claims recite a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong one because the claims recite activities in the limitations that represent the subgroupings of certain methods of organizing human activities. In particular, the steps / activities of receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, receiving desired output values…, providing output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values…, providing the combination of input values..., adjusting an input value…, validating the model, evaluating the physical / industrial process represent the subcategory of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people ; and the activities of receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, receiving desired output values…, providing output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values…, providing the combination of input values..., adjusting an input value…, validating the model, evaluating the physical / industrial process represent the subcategory of following rules or instructions. The general / generic computer components used to implement these certain methods of organizing human activities does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities because the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings , per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Since the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities that represent the subgroupings, the claims recite a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “The amended independent claims recite specific technical features directed to controlling a physical/industrial process through a closed-loop system comprising controllers, sensors, and memory operating in concert. For example, amended independent Claim 1 now recites one or more controllers configured to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination, one or more sensors configured to monitor one or more performance indicators for the physical process, and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process. These features describe a machine-implemented industrial control loop in which controllers physically adjust process parameters, sensors monitor the resulting performance, and the saved data is used to evaluate subsequent process executions. A human cannot physically adjust industrial process input values through controllers, simultaneously monitor performance indicators through sensors, and persistently associate the input combinations with the monitored performance indicators for evaluating subsequent process executions. These are not activities that manage personal behavior or follow rules or instructions in the context of human interactions; rather, they are technical operations performed by physical equipment in an industrial environment” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, the limitations of “one or more controllers configured to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination”, and “wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process” represents high level certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), implemented by a generic / general purpose computer (e.g. controller for the adjusting, no computer specified for the evaluating). The machine here is no more than ‘applying’ the judicial exception by a computer which is not a practical application or significantly more, and also does not preclude the claim from reciting a judicial exception (e.g. adjusting at least one input value). Note that there are no particular details about the physical process in the claims, so at this high level of detail there is nothing that would suggest a person could not otherwise perform adjusting inputs to an unspecified high level process, or a person could not otherwise perform evaluating using (i.e. as a reference) saved inputs / performance indicators. Second, the limitation of “one or more sensors configured to monitor one or more performance indicators for the physical process” is an additional element to the judicial exception (i.e. general means of gathering data for subsequent validating). While these are not part of the judicial exception, they are recited at a high level of detail and only provide insignificant / tangential additions to the claims as extra-solution data gathering; and the computer elements here (e.g. sensors) are high level computer components performing in their ordinary data-gathering capacity. Adding high level data gathering steps for subsequent judicial exception steps does not add a meaningful limitation to the process, even if implemented by a computer component. Hence, the ‘machine implemented’ components in the claims (e.g. interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application, one or more controllers, one or more sensors) do not preclude the claims from reciting a judicial exception and do not represent a practical application / significantly more than the judicial exception; because they are either ‘applying’ the judicial exception by generic / general purpose computers, or are performing high level extra-solution activities using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention cannot be grouped as a mathematical concept as alleged in the Office Action. Regarding mathematical relationships, the MPEP defines the mathematical concepts grouping as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). It further notes that, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. Id. The amended claims do not recite any specific mathematical formula, equation, or calculation. While the claims involve a model that receives input values and provides output values, the claims do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. The model is recited as a functional component of a larger system that includes controllers for adjusting physical process parameters, sensors for monitoring performance indicators, and memory for saving both the input combinations and performance indicators to evaluate subsequent process executions. The claims are directed to the overall technical system for controlling and evaluating a physical process, not to any underlying mathematical concept. At most, the claims are based on or involve mathematical concepts, which does not place them within the mathematical concepts grouping” (Remarks pg. 12-13). Examiner disagrees. The Office Action notes that in identifying the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, the claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mathematical concepts (of the identified certain methods of organizing human activities). The limitations of wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and provide one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the physical process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs; receiving one or more desired output values for the physical process; to: receive the one or more desired output values; test a plurality of values for at least one of the one or more input values; identify a combination of the one or more input values that is associated with the one or more desired output values all represent mathematical concepts. The steps of receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values… represent a high level mathematical calculation or formula (noting that the model claimed this high level of generality without any other particular technical details may represent a mathematical formula or calculation (see the Applicant specification ¶[0031-32] stating the model may refer to a mathematical representation of a process), and is part of the identified judicial exception). The steps of receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values… represent mathematical relationships between inputs and outputs. The steps of receiving desired output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values… represent mathematical relationships between model outputs and desired outputs. Hence these activities are also high level mathematical concepts, calculations / formulas, and mathematical relationships that are recited in the claims in Step 2A Prong One. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “the claimed invention, as a whole, integrates the elements of the independent claims into a practical application under the second prong of the Step 2A analysis. The amended claims employ the results of the model inversion (the identified combination of input values) to take corrective action through controllers that physically adjust input values of the physical/industrial process. Sensors then monitor performance indicators in response to those physical adjustments, capturing real-world data about the actual process execution. The system saves both the applied input combination and the measured performance indicators together in memory to validate the model and evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process. This creates a closed-loop feedback mechanism in which computational results are applied to a physical process through controllers, the physical effects are measured by sensors, and the resulting execution data is persistently stored and reused to assess later process runs. This goes beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a technological environment. That is, the claim recites specific physical components (controllers, sensors, memory) operating in a defined sequence to control, monitor, and evaluate a physical process. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea, as alleged in the Office Action), and even assuming arguendo that the Examiner finds that claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, Applicant submits that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application” (Remarks pg. 13-14). Examiner disagrees. The additional elements do not provide a practical application because the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (which includes the argued steps of identifying the combination of input values, adjusting the input values, validating , and evaluating subsequent execution) using generic computers / general computer components (e.g. an interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application, one or more controllers); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (data storage, data gathering, transmitting data) using general computer components in their ordinary capacity (e.g. one or more sensors, one or more processors, memory). These features and elements do not go beyond the judicial exception in such a way that provides a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g). This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “the specific claim elements recited would constitute ‘significantly more’ than the alleged abstract idea such that the claimed invention recites an ‘inventive concept’ over the alleged abstract idea. Under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, the examiner should evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claimed invention recites significantly more than the judicial exception to which it is directed. At least, as discussed hereinabove, Applicant submits that the arrangement of all of the claim features provides an improvement to the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the claimed invention is directed to, and specifically recites, a system and a method that are fundamentally different from generic computing functions or conventional human processes. The amended claims recite a specific arrangement of controllers that adjust physical process parameters based on identified input combinations, sensors that monitor performance indicators in response to those adjustments, and memory that saves both the input combinations and the performance indicators for evaluating subsequent process executions. This ordered combination of elements creates a closed-loop industrial process control and evaluation system that goes beyond merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer. The claimed steps amount to more than the sum of their parts, resulting in unique technical benefits. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Step 2B analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention is significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and eligible for patenting. Withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested” (Remarks pg. 14-15). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims do not improve a technology or technical field or a computer itself. The ‘physical process’ (claims 1 and 18) and ‘industrial process’ (claim 10) have no particular steps or details, and do not link the claims to a specific technology. Second, viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. The claims in combination still represent instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (e.g. an interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application, one or more controllers); with high-level extra-solution activities (data storage, data gathering, transmitting data) using general computer components in their ordinary capacity (e.g. one or more sensors, one or more processors, memory), which is not significantly more; and there is no particular arrangement of parts / computer components to solve a technical problem. This argument is not persuasive. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Bartlett fails to teach or suggest ‘one or more controllers configured to adjust the at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination’ in conjunction with ‘wherein the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are saved in the memory to validate the model, and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process’ as recited by independent Claim 1” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. These limitations are taught by Bartlett. First, regarding the limitation “[one] or more controllers configured to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination”, Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0034], ¶[0040], claim 14 details entering the obtained values (process inputs) from the model into the controller to obtain the desired result in the process module. In particular, ¶[0040] states “Values for particular parameters that will provide a desired result may be obtained from the model and may be entered into the controller to obtain a desired result in the process module”. Second, regarding the limitation “wherein the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are saved in the memory to validate the model”, Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0038], ¶[0051-52], ¶[0055], ¶[0079] details controller data is recorded in addition to data from the PCMD, transmitting data from a process module to a base station in real time or store for later transmission in memory, the recorded data includes temperature measurements from the hotplate temperature sensors (i.e. outputs / performance indicators) and the heat power delivered to the heating elements of the zones and the temperature setpoints and offsets used by the controller to determine the power delivered to the zones (i.e. input values) and operating parameters that determine the response of the controller to an error (difference between setpoint and measured temperature) such as PID constants and maximum and minimum power values may be recorded to be used in developing a model, i.e. saving the combinations of input values and performance indicators in the memory to validate the model. In particular ¶[0051] “In some embodiments, controller data is recorded in addition to data from the PCMD. The controller data may include the heat power delivered to the heating elements of the zones, the temperature setpoints and offsets used by the controllers to determine the power delivered to the zones and the temperature measurements from the hotplate temperature sensors” which details recording both inputs and performance indicator outputs; and ¶[0055] “Once the data is collected it may be used to produce a dynamic process model of the relationship between the process inputs and process outputs of the system” and ¶[0019] “An audit is performed when a PCMD is used to record process condition data from a process module that is compared with historic data or target data values to determine if the process module is operating satisfactorily” and ¶[0079] “Model-based tuning, reconciliation and auditing may all be used to provide a process module that is tuned to provide a process module that is tuned to produce a desired output and that maintains a desired output over time”. Third, regarding the limitation ”wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the industrial process”, Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0078-79] details performing periodic auditing comparing process condition data with historic data or target data (i.e. saved combination of input and performance indicators) to determine if the process module is operating satisfactorily, if it is outside the specified limits then it may be necessary to perform reconciliation and/or model-based turning may be repeated. In particular ¶[0019] “An audit is performed when a PCMD is used to record process condition data from a process module that is compared with historic data or target data values to determine if the process module is operating satisfactorily”; and ¶[0079] “Auditing simply verifies that the module is performing within some limits. If it is outside the specified limits for some reason, then a reconciliation operation may be performed. If the module is far outside the specified limits, it may be necessary to perform model-based turning”. Hence, Bartlett teaches these limitations and this argument is not persuasive. Claim Objections 07-29-01 Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 : Claim 1 includes the limitation “or more controllers configured to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination” which (1) is missing punctuation at the end of the limitation (likely a semicolon), and (2) is missing the word ‘one’ before “or more controllers” (likely ‘one’ in view of similar claim 18). The Office recommends amending to add these omissions for clarity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-20 : Step 1 : Claims 1-9 and 18-20 recite a system; and claims 10-17 recite a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One. Step 2A – Prong One : Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and provide one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the physical process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs; receiving one or more desired output values for the physical process; to: receive the one or more desired output values; test a plurality of values for at least one of the one or more input values; identify a combination of the one or more input values that is associated with the one or more desired output values; and provide the combination for output; to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination; and adjusting the at least one input value of the physical process based on the combination, and to validate the model; and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process. Independent claim 10 recites: receiving one or more desired output values from a stakeholder; iterating through one or more combinations of one or more input values for a model of an industrial process, wherein the model outputs one or more output values and the one or more input values are associated with potential input parameters for the industrial process; identifying a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values; providing the combination of the one or more input values to the stakeholder; to adjust the at least one input value of the industrial process based on the combination of the one or more input values; and to validate the model; and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the industrial process. Independent claim 18 recites: wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and generate one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the industrial process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs; receiving one or more desired output values for the industrial process from one or more stakeholders and providing the one or more output values to the one or more stakeholders; and to: receive the one or more desired output values; iterate through a plurality of input values for at least one of the one or more input values; identify a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values; and provide the combination to the one or more stakeholders; to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the industrial process based on the combination; adjusting at least one input value of the industrial process based on the combination, and to validate the model; and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process. The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mathematical concepts. First, the limitations (claim 1) wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and provide one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the physical process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs; receiving one or more desired output values for the physical process; to: receive the one or more desired output values; test a plurality of values for at least one of the one or more input values; identify a combination of the one or more input values that is associated with the one or more desired output values; and provide the combination for output; to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination; and adjusting the at least one input value of the physical process based on the combination, and to validate the model; and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the industrial process (claim 10) receiving one or more desired output values from a stakeholder; iterating through one or more combinations of one or more input values for a model of an industrial process, wherein the model outputs one or more output values and the one or more input values are associated with potential input parameters for the industrial process; identifying a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values; providing the combination of the one or more input values to the stakeholder; to adjust the at least one input value of the industrial process based on the combination of the one or more input values; and to validate the model; and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the industrial process; (claim 18) wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and generate one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the industrial process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs; receiving one or more desired output values for the industrial process from one or more stakeholders and providing the one or more output values to the one or more stakeholders; and to: receive the one or more desired output values; iterate through a plurality of input values for at least one of the one or more input values; identify a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values; and provide the combination to the one or more stakeholders; to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the industrial process based on the combination; adjusting at least one input value of the industrial process based on the combination, and to validate the model; and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, receiving desired output values…, providing output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values…, providing the combination of input values..., adjusting an input value…, validating the model, evaluating the physical / industrial process…; and following rules or instructions includes receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, receiving desired output values…, providing output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values…, providing the combination of input values, adjusting an input value…, validating the model, evaluating the physical / industrial process. Also note that the model claimed this high level of generality without any other particular technical details may represent basic conceptual relationships, and/or basic mathematical formula or calculations, and is part of the identified judicial exception. The presence of generic / general computer components such as an interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application, one or more controllers does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas. Second, the limitations of (claim 1) wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and provide one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the physical process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs; receiving one or more desired output values for the physical process; to: receive the one or more desired output values; test a plurality of values for at least one of the one or more input values; identify a combination of the one or more input values that is associated with the one or more desired output values; (claim 10) receiving one or more desired output values from a stakeholder; iterating through one or more combinations of one or more input values for a model of an industrial process, wherein the model outputs one or more output values and the one or more input values are associated with potential input parameters for the industrial process; identifying a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values; (claim 18) wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and generate one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the industrial process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs; receiving one or more desired output values for the industrial process from one or more stakeholders; to: receive the one or more desired output values; iterate through a plurality of input values for at least one of the one or more input values; identify a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values; all represent mathematical concepts. The steps of receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values… represent a high level mathematical calculation or formula (noting that the model claimed this high level of generality without any other particular technical details may represent a mathematical formula or calculation (see Applicant specification ¶[0031-32] stating the model may refer to a mathematical representation of a process), and is part of the identified judicial exception). The steps of receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values… represent mathematical relationships between inputs and outputs. The steps of receiving desired output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values… represent mathematical relationships between model outputs and desired outputs. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. an interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application), then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two. Step 2A – Prong Two : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-20 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. an interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application, one or more controllers) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the additional element of monitoring and its steps of (claim 1) one or more sensors configured to monitor one or more performance indicators for the physical process, wherein the one or more sensors monitor the one or more performance indicators in response to adjusting; (claim 10) monitoring one or more performance indicators for the industrial process using one or more sensors; (claim 18) one or more sensors configured to monitor one or more performance indicators for the industrial process, wherein the one or more sensors monitor the one or more performance indicators in response to adjusting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent validating), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the sensors (general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the monitoring, and are performing in their ordinary computer capacity (i.e. monitoring data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding monitoring more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to gather data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the additional element of storing / saving and its steps of (claim 1) a memory configured to store a model of a physical process; wherein the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are saved in the memory; (claim 10) saving the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators in a memory; (claim 18) a memory configured to store a model of an industrial process and a model inversion application; wherein the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are saved in the memory are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for the receiving / generating and subsequent identifying), and amounts to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the memory, and model inversion application (general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the storing / saving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of receiving (e.g. (claim 1) an interface capable of receiving one or more desired output values for the physical process; cause the one or more processors to: receive the one or more desired output values; (claim 10) receiving one or more desired output values from a stakeholder through a user interface; (claim 18) a user interface capable of receiving one or more desired output values for the industrial process from one or more stakeholders ; …cause the one or more processors to: receive the one or more desired output values through the user interface) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for outputting, and gathering data for iterating / testing / identifying), and also amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the interface / user interface, processor (general computer component, generic computer) are only being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of providing (e.g. (claim 1) cause the one or more processors to: provide the combination for output through the interface; (claim 10) providing the combination of the one or more input values to the stakeholder through the user interface; (claim 18) a user interface capable of… providing the one or more output values to the one or more stakeholders; …cause the one or more processors to: providing the combination to the one or more stakeholders through the user interface) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting results of the receiving / identifying), and also amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the interface / user interface, processor (general computer component, generic computer) are only being used as a tool in the transmitting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (an interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application, one or more controllers); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (data storage, data gathering, transmitting data). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Step 2B : The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an interface / user interface, one or more processors, application / model inversion application, one or more controllers to perform receiving input values, providing / generating / outputting output values…, receiving desired output values…, providing output values…, testing / iterating a plurality of input values…, identifying a combination of input values that cause the desired output values…, providing the combination of input values..., adjusting an input value…, validating the model, evaluating the physical / industrial process amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the monitoring is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent validating), and amount to mere gathering data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. sensors) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool and in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these monitoring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network ( Symantec ), a computer receives and sends information over a network ( buySAFE ). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0019] describing the additional element of sensors measuring information about the industrial process at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the storing / saving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for the receiving / generating and subsequent identifying), and amount to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. memory, model inversion application) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool and in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these storing / saving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular storing and retrieving information in memory ( Versata ; OIP Techs ). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the receiving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for outputting, and gathering data for iterating / testing / identifying), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. interface / user interface, processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network ( Symantec ), a computer receives and sends information over a network ( buySAFE ). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the providing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting / outputting results of the receiving / identifying), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. interface / user interface, processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network ( Symantec ), sending messages over a network ( OIP Techs ), a computer receives and sends information over a network ( buySAFE ). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. Also, while identified above in Step 2A Prong One as an organizing human activity and mathematical concept, further note that the step of (claims 10, 18) iterating (e.g. iterating through one or more combinations of one or more input values for a model of an industrial process; iterate through a plurality of input values for at least one of the one or more input values) is also claimed at such a high level of generality that it represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular performing repetitive calculations ( Flook ). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of certain methods of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering and storing data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / commercial / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine input values of a process when output values are known), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a commercial / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application. Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 10, 18, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims: Dependent claim 2 : The limitation wherein the physical process is controlled based on the combination of the one or more input values is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Note that there are no claimed details regarding the physical process and under broadest reasonable interpretation it may be a method of organizing human activity. In addition, this activity of controlling is also claimed at such a high level of detail that it also represents post-solution activity of implementing the identifying step, which is not a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0071] describing the element that a physical process is controlled based on the combination of the one or more input values at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 3 : The limitations wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: test multiple output values; and identify the one or more input values associated with each of the multiple output values are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of one or more processors is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 4, 13, and 19 : The limitation wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine that the combination of the one or more input values is associated with the one or more input values through at least one of: the combination of the one or more input values cause the one or more output values to equal the one or more desired output values; the combination of the one or more input values cause the one or more output values to be within an acceptable range of the one or more desired output values; and the combination of the one or more input values is a closest combination of tested combinations of the plurality of values that caused the one or more output values to be closest to the one or more desired output values is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of one or more processors is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 5 and 14 : The limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide a notification of no identified combination through the interface, when the one or more processors is unable to identify the combination associated with the one or more desired output values is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the interface and one or more processors are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 6 and 20 : First, the limitations wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: save the combination and receive measures of physical outputs from the physical process when implementing input parameters associated with the combination represent additional elements (extra-solution data storage / record keeping; extra-solution data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the one or more processors are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data, to receive data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the saving and receiving steps here are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network ( Symantec ), sending messages over a network ( OIP Techs ), a computer receives and sends information over a network ( buySAFE ), electronic record keeping ( Alice ), storing and retrieving information in memory ( Versata ; OIP Techs ). Second, the limitation to improve performance of the model using the combination and the received measures of the physical outputs is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the interface and one or more processors are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also note that the model claimed this high level of generality without any other particular technical details may represent basic conceptual relationships, and/or basic mathematical formula or calculations, and is part of the identified judicial exception. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 7 and 15 : The limitation wherein the computer executable instructions cause the one or more processors to constrain the plurality of values within physical limits of the potential input parameters associated with the plurality of values is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas / calculations) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the one or more processors are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 8 and 16 : First, the limitation wherein the model is at least one of:… a statistical model; and a mathematical model merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation. Second, the limitation wherein the model is at least one of: a machine learning model represents an additional element (general linking the judicial exception to a field of use / technology, i.e. machine learning) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Note that there are no particular, technical details claimed regarding the machine learning model, and at this high level of detail without any other details is no more than ‘applying’ the model by a general purpose computer. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0036-39] describing the additional element of using various machine learning models at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea. Dependent claims 9 and 17 : The limitations wherein the application displays a user interface for receiving the one or more desired output values from a user and providing the combination of the one or more input values through the user interface to the user are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the application and user interface are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Furthermore, the receiving and providing steps here are claimed at a high level of detail, and also represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network ( Symantec ), sending messages over a network ( OIP Techs ), a computer receives and sends information over a network ( buySAFE ). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 11 : First, the limitation configuring the industrial process with the combination is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Note that there are no claimed details regarding the industrial process and under broadest reasonable interpretation it may be a method of organizing human activity. In addition, this activity of configuring is also claimed at such a high level of detail that it also represents post-solution activity of implementing the identifying / providing step, which is not a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0080] describing the element that an industrial process is configured based on the combination at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, the limitation of evaluating the model based on outputs of the model as configured with the combination is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 12 : The limitation wherein identifying the combination of the one or more input values comprises identifying multiple combinations of the one or more input values, wherein each combination of the one or more input values is associated with a different output value is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 10, 18, and the dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2005/0267606 A1 to Bartlett et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0162062 A1 to Kiciman et al . Claim 1 : Bartlett, as shown, teaches the following: A system (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0039] details a process module, modeling system / model on a personal computer, controller) comprising: With respect to the following: a memory configured to store a model of a physical process, Bartlett, as shown in ¶[0004], claim 14 details using memory to store data, and Fig 3A-3B, ¶[0001-2], ¶[0034], ¶[0039] details a modeling system for processes regarding the manufacturer of products associated with semiconductor wafer substrate processing executed on a personal computer, highly suggesting but not explicitly state that the memory is configured to store a model of a physical process. However, Kiciman teaches this limitation (Kiciman ¶[0069-71], ¶[0076] details storing the applications which include the simulator (machine learning model(s)) and/or machine learning model trainer in a media that can include volatile / non-volatile memory, to generate a prediction about an aspect of a real-world system simulated by the simulator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a memory configured to store a model of a physical process as taught by Kiciman with the teachings of Bartlett, with the motivation of “reducing the computing costs and time spend evaluating configurations of a real-world system” (Kiciman ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a memory configured to store a model of a physical process as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Bartlett (in view of Kiciman) also teaches the following: wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and provide one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the physical process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs (Bartlett ¶[0015-16], ¶[0034] details the process module has multiple inputs and multiple outputs and used to build a software model that includes relationships between the inputs and outputs; predicting the inputs that will provide a set of desired outputs thus tuning the process module, with an example of hotplate inputs (powers) as process inputs and output of the hotplate (temperature) at a particular time as the outputs); an interface capable of receiving one or more desired output values for the physical process (Bartlett ¶[0034], ¶[0039-41], ¶[0077] details the modeling system may be a software application running on a processing unit / personal computer (i.e. a human-machine interface); and entering the desired temperatures / output set of processing conditions into the model; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0073] details the computer architecture input/output controller receiving desired outputs and processing received inputs from a keyboard / mouse / touch / stylus, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); one or more processors executing computer executable instructions associated with an application that cause the one or more processors (Bartlett ¶[0039] details executing the modeling system on a processing unit / personal computer) to: receive the one or more desired output values (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0059-60], ¶[0077] details the inversion gain equation allows the set of desired outputs to be entered into the model so that the inputs needed to produce the desired outputs may be predicted; and entering the desired temperatures into the model; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0047-49] details a user utilizing a machine learning model, and beginning with the desired outputs, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); test a plurality of values for at least one of the one or more input values (Bartlett ¶[0018], ¶[0046] details performing multiple iterations of changes to different zone setpoint temperatures (input values) to achieve the desired temperature outputs of the respective zones during tuning; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0049] details beginning with the desired output and applying a gradient descent algorithm to determine the weights (input parameters) at each layer, and the final layer of weights – those that yield the output of the machine learning model are iteratively adjusted until they yield the desired output, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); identify a combination of the one or more input values that is associated with the one or more desired output values (Bartlett ¶[0040], ¶[0065], ¶[0073-74] details obtaining values for particular parameters that will provide a desired result from the model, predicting the process inputs necessary to obtain a desired set of process outputs; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0049] details beginning with the desired output and applying a gradient descent algorithm to determine the weights (input parameters) at each layer, and the final layer of weights – those that yield the output of the machine learning model are iteratively adjusted until they yield the desired output, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and provide the combination for output through the interface (Bartlett ¶[0039-40], ¶[0065] details obtaining values for particular process parameters (combination of inputs) that will provide a desired process result from the model, with the modeling system running as a software application on a processing unit / personal computer (i.e. human-machine interface), the obtained values for the parameters that provide the desired result may then be entered into the controller; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0073] details determining the weights of layers (combination of inputs) that generate the desired outputs are identified and the input/output controller providing output to a display screen / speaker / output device, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and [one] or more controllers configured to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the physical process based on the combination (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0034], ¶[0040], claim 14 details entering the obtained values (process inputs) from the model into the controller to obtain the desired result in the process module (i.e. adjusting input values of the industrial process based on the combination)) one or more sensors configured to monitor one or more performance indicators for the physical process (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0016], claim 14 details a plurality of sensors that measure process conditions such as temperature), wherein the one or more sensors monitor the one or more performance indicators in response to the adjusting at least one input value of the physical process based on the combination (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0034], ¶[0040], claim 14 details entering the obtained values (process inputs) from the model into the controller to obtain the desired result in the process module, using sensors to measure temperature and other process conditions, monitoring the effects of the adjustments), and wherein the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are saved in the memory to validate the model (Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0038], ¶[0051-52], ¶[0055], ¶[0079] details controller data is recorded in addition to data from the PCMD, transmitting data from a process module to a base station in real time or store for later transmission in memory, the recorded data includes temperature measurements from the hotplate temperature sensors (i.e. outputs / performance indicators) and the heat power delivered to the heating elements of the zones and the temperature setpoints and offsets used by the controller to determine the power delivered to the zones (i.e. input values) and operating parameters that determine the response of the controller to an error (difference between setpoint and measured temperature) such as PID constants and maximum and minimum power values may be recorded to be used in developing a model, i.e. saving the combinations of input values and performance indicators in the memory to validate the model), and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the physical process (Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0078-79] details performing periodic auditing comparing process condition data with historic data or target data (i.e. saved combination of input and performance indicators) to determine if the process module is operating satisfactorily, if it is outside the specified limits then it may be necessary to perform reconciliation and/or model-based turning may be repeated). Claim 2 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Bartlett also teaches the following: wherein the physical process is controlled based on the combination of the one or more input values (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0035-36], ¶[0040] details values for the particular parameters (inputs) that will provide a desired result are obtained from the model and may be entered into the controller of a substrate-processing module used to process semiconductor wafers / flat-panel displays / other substrates to obtain a desired result in the process module). Claim 3 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Bartlett also teaches the following: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: test multiple output values (Bartlett ¶[0064-65], ¶[0072-74] details testing multiple temperatures (e.g. T1, T2, T3,…) which are the output values by inverting the matrix equation); and identify the one or more input values associated with each of the multiple output values (Bartlett ¶[0064-65], ¶[0072-74] details obtaining setpoints (e.g. SP1, SP2,…) by testing multiple temperatures (e.g. T1, T2, T3…) inverting the matrix equation). Claim 4 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Bartlett also teaches the following: wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine that the combination of the one or more input values is associated with the one or more input values through at least one of: the combination of the one or more input values cause the one or more output values to equal the one or more desired output values (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0016], ¶[0034], ¶[0047] details entering desired outputs into the model and the model then predicts the modeled inputs that will provide these desired outputs); the combination of the one or more input values cause the one or more output values to be within an acceptable range of the one or more desired output values; and the combination of the one or more input values is a closest combination of tested combinations of the plurality of values that caused the one or more output values to be closest to the one or more desired output values. Claim 7 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Bartlett also teaches the following: wherein the computer executable instructions cause the one or more processors to constrain the plurality of values within physical limits of the potential input parameters associated with the plurality of values (Bartlett ¶[0009], claim 17 details constraining the operating parameters such as a maximum power value and a minimum power value). Claim 8 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Bartlett also teaches the following: wherein the model is at least one of: a machine learning model; a statistical model; and a mathematical model (Bartlett ¶[0058-60], ¶[0064], ¶[0072-73] detail mathematical models). Claim 9 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following: wherein the application displays a user interface for receiving the one or more desired output values from a user and providing the combination of the one or more input values through the user interface to the user. Bartlett, as shown in Fig 3A, ¶[0034], ¶[0039-40] details entering the one or more desired output values from a user and then provides the predicted inputs from the outputs using a software application on a personal computer / workstation, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating the application displays a user interface. However, Kiciman teaches this remaining limitation, inputting the desired outputs into the machine learning model inversion optimizer, outputting the inputs that generate the desired outputs, and the computer architecture includes an input/output controller (i.e. user interface) that includes keyboard / mouse / touch for input and display screen for output (Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0049], ¶[0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the application displays a user interface for receiving the one or more desired output values from a user and providing the combination of the one or more input values through the user interface to the user as taught by Kiciman with the teachings of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), with the motivation of “reducing the computing costs and time spend evaluating configurations of a real-world system” (Kiciman ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the application displays a user interface for receiving the one or more desired output values from a user and providing the combination of the one or more input values through the user interface to the user as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Claim 10 : With respect to the following: A method comprising: receiving one or more desired output values from a stakeholder through a user interface; Bartlett, as shown in ¶[0039], ¶[0059-60], ¶[0077] details entering a set of desired outputs into the model so that the inputs needed to produce the desired outputs may be predicted, entering the desired temperatures into the model, and implementing the model using a personal computer or workstation; highly suggesting but not explicitly stating that the outputs are entered from a stakeholder through a user interface. However, Kiciman teaches this limitation, with a user utilizing a machine learning model to make a prediction about how a real-world system will operate, inputting the desired outputs into the machine learning model inversion optimizer, and the computer architecture includes an input/output controller that includes keyboard / mouse / touch for input and display screen output (i.e. user interface) (Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0049] ¶[0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving one or more desired output values from a stakeholder through a user interface as taught by Kiciman with the teachings of Bartlett, with the motivation of “reducing the computing costs and time spend evaluating configurations of a real-world system” (Kiciman ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving one or more desired output values from a stakeholder through a user interface as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Bartlett (in view of Kiciman, applying that the computer includes the input/output controller with keyboard / mouse / touch and output to display screen, i.e. user interface, per Kiciman above) also teaches the following: iterating through one or more combinations of one or more input values for a model of an industrial process, wherein the model outputs one or more output values and the one or more input values are associated with potential input parameters for the industrial process (Bartlett ¶[0001], ¶[0018], ¶[0046] details performing multiple iterations of changes to different zone setpoint temperatures (input values) to achieve the desired temperature outputs of the respective zones during tuning regarding substrate processing equipment for semiconductor wafers; and ¶[0015-16], ¶[0034] details the process module has multiple inputs and multiple outputs used to build a software model that includes relationships between the inputs and outputs; predicting the inputs that will provide a set of desired outputs thus tuning the process module, with an example of hotplate inputs (powers) as process inputs and output of the hotplate (temperature) at a particular time as the outputs); identifying a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values (Bartlett ¶[0040], ¶[0065], ¶[0073-74] details obtaining values for particular parameters that will provide a desired result from the model, predicting the process inputs necessary to obtain a desired set of process outputs; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0049] details beginning with the desired output and applying a gradient descent algorithm to determine the weights (input parameters) at each layer, and the final layer of weights – those that yield the output of the machine learning model are iteratively adjusted until they yield the desired output, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); providing the combination of the one or more input values to the stakeholder through the user interface (Bartlett ¶[0039-40], ¶[0065] details obtaining values for particular parameters (combination of inputs) that will provide a desired result from the model, with the modeling system running as a software application on a personal computer or workstation (i.e. human-machine interface)); using one or more controllers to adjust the at least one input value of the industrial process based on the combination of the one or more input values (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0034], ¶[0040], claim 14 details entering the obtained values (process inputs) from the model into the controller to obtain the desired result in the process module (i.e. adjusting input values of the industrial process based on the combination)); monitoring one or more performance indicators for the industrial process using one or more sensors (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0016], claim 14 details a plurality of sensors that measure process conditions such as temperature); and saving the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators in a memory to validate the model (Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0038], ¶[0051-52], ¶[0055], ¶[0079] details controller data is recorded in addition to data from the PCMD, transmitting data from a process module to a base station in real time or store for later transmission in memory, the recorded data includes temperature measurements from the hotplate temperature sensors (i.e. outputs / performance indicators) and the heat power delivered to the heating elements of the zones and the temperature setpoints and offsets used by the controller to determine the power delivered to the zones (i.e. input values) and operating parameters that determine the response of the controller to an error (difference between setpoint and measured temperature) such as PID constants and maximum and minimum power values may be recorded to be used in developing a model, i.e. saving the combinations of input values and performance indicators in the memory to validate the model), wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the industrial process (Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0078-79] details performing periodic auditing comparing process condition data with historic data or target data (i.e. saved combination of input and performance indicators) to determine if the process module is operating satisfactorily, if it is outside the specified limits then it may be necessary to perform reconciliation and/or model-based turning may be repeated). Claim 11 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 10. Bartlett also teaches the following: configuring the industrial process with the combination (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0035-36], ¶[0040] details values for the particular parameters (inputs) that will provide a desired result are obtained from the model and may be entered into the controller of a substrate-processing module used to process semiconductor wafers / flat-panel displays / other substrates to obtain a desired result in the process module); and evaluating the model based on outputs of the model as configured with the combination (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0010], ¶[0040] details entering results obtained from the model into the controller to obtain the desired result, and monitoring the effect of adjustments in real-time; also ¶[0018] combining model based tuning with a reconcile procedure making minor adjustments if needed to bring substrate temperature of some zones closer to the desired temperature, repeating on a periodic basis to correct for small changes in process module performance). Claim 12 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 10. Bartlett also teaches the following: wherein identifying the combination of the one or more input values comprises identifying multiple combinations of the one or more input values, wherein each combination of the one or more input values is associated with a different output value (Bartlett ¶[0058-59], ¶[0064-65], ¶[0072-74] details testing multiple temperatures (e.g. T1, T2, T3,…) which are the output values by inverting the matrix equation, and the output values are each associated with a different setpoint and zone (e.g. SP1, SP2,…) which belong to the set of inputs of the system). Claim 13 : Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4. Claim 15 : Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 7. Claim 16 : Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8 and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 8. Claim 17 : Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 9 and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 9. Claim 18 : Bartlett, as shown, teaches the following: A system (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0039] details a process module, modeling system / model on a personal computer, controller) comprising: With respect to the following: a memory configured to store a model of an industrial process and a model inversion application, Bartlett, as shown in ¶[0004], claim 14 details using memory to store data, and Fig 3A-3B, ¶[0001-2], ¶[0034], ¶[0039] details a modeling system as a software application for processes regarding the manufacturer of products associated with semiconductor wafer substrate processing executed on a personal computer, highly suggesting but not explicitly state that the memory configured to store a model of an industrial process. However, Kiciman teaches this limitation storing the applications which include the simulator (machine learning model(s)) and/or machine learning model trainer in a media that can include volatile / non-volatile memory, to generate a prediction about an aspect of a real-world system simulated by the simulator, and the model can be inverted to provide desired outputs to obtain inputs that generate the desired outputs (Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0049], ¶[0069-71], ¶[0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a memory configured to store a model of an industrial process and a model inversion application as taught by Kiciman with the teachings of Bartlett, with the motivation of “reducing the computing costs and time spend evaluating configurations of a real-world system” (Kiciman ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a memory configured to store a model of an industrial process and a model inversion application as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Bartlett (in view of Kiciman) also teaches the following: wherein the model is configured to receive one or more input values and generate one or more output values, wherein the one or more input values represent potential input parameters for the industrial process and the one or more output values represent potential measures of process outputs (Bartlett ¶[0015-16], ¶[0034] details the process module has multiple inputs and multiple outputs and used to build a software model that includes relationships between the inputs and outputs; predicting the inputs that will provide a set of desired outputs thus tuning the process module, with an example of hotplate inputs (powers) as process inputs and output of the hotplate (temperature) at a particular time as the outputs); With respect to the following: a user interface capable of receiving one or more desired output values for the industrial process from one or more stakeholders and providing the one or more output values to the one or more stakeholders; Bartlett, as shown in Fig 3A, ¶[0015], ¶[0001], ¶[0039-40] details operating a model receiving inputs (including desired outputs) and provides outputs using a personal computer / workstation, entering desired output values for the semiconductor process model, and obtaining the values for the particular parameters that will provide the desired result from the model, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating a user interface. To the extent that Bartlett may not explicitly state this, Kiciman teaches this remaining limitation, with a user utilizing the machine learning model to make a prediction about how the real world system will operate, with a computer system input / output controller with inputs provided through keyboard / mouse / touch / stylus and outputs provided to a display screen, i.e. a user interface (Kiciman ¶[0047], ¶[0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a user interface as taught by Kiciman with the teachings of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), with the motivation of “reducing the computing costs and time spend evaluating configurations of a real-world system” (Kiciman ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a user interface as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Bartlett (in view of Kiciman, applying the computer includes the input/output controller including a keyboard / mouse / touch and display screen, i.e. user interface, per Kiciman above) also teaches the following: one or more processors executing the model inversion application (Bartlett Fig 3A, ¶[0034], ¶[0039] details the model running on a processing unit) that cause the one or more processors to: receive the one or more desired output values through the user interface (Bartlett ¶[0039], ¶[0059-60], ¶[0077] details entering a set of desired outputs into the model so that the inputs needed to produce the desired outputs may be predicted, entering the desired temperatures into the model, and implementing the model using a personal computer or workstation); iterate through a plurality of input values for at least one of the one or more input values (Bartlett ¶[0001], ¶[0018], ¶[0046] details performing multiple iterations of changes to different zone setpoint temperatures (input values) to achieve the desired temperature outputs of the respective zones during tuning regarding substrate processing equipment for semiconductor wafers; and ¶[0015-16], ¶[0034] details the process module has multiple inputs and multiple outputs used to build a software model that includes relationships between the inputs and outputs; predicting the inputs that will provide a set of desired outputs thus tuning the process module, with an example of hotplate inputs (powers) as process inputs and output of the hotplate (temperature) at a particular time as the outputs); identify a combination of the one or more input values that causes the model to generate output values associated with the one or more desired output values (Bartlett ¶[0040], ¶[0065], ¶[0073-74] details obtaining values for particular parameters that will provide a desired result from the model, predicting the process inputs necessary to obtain a desired set of process outputs; in further support of obviousness see also/alternatively Kiciman Fig 3, ¶[0049] details beginning with the desired output and applying a gradient descent algorithm to determine the weights (input parameters) at each layer, and the final layer of weights – those that yield the output of the machine learning model are iteratively adjusted until they yield the desired output, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett (in view of Kiciman), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and provide the combination to the one or more stakeholders through the user interface (Bartlett ¶[0039-40], ¶[0065] details obtaining / predicting values for particular parameters that will provide a desired result from the model, with the modeling system running as a software application on a personal computer or workstation); and one or more controllers configured to adjust at least one input value of the one or more input values of the industrial process based on the combination (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0034], ¶[0040], claim 14 details entering the obtained values (process inputs) from the model into the controller to obtain the desired result in the process module (i.e. adjusting input values of the industrial process based on the combination)); one or more sensors configured to monitor one or more performance indicators for the industrial process (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0016], claim 14 details a plurality of sensors that measure process conditions such as temperature), wherein the one or more sensors monitor the one or more performance indicators in response to adjusting at least one input value of the industrial process based on the combination (Bartlett ¶[0010], ¶[0034], ¶[0040], claim 14 details entering the obtained values (process inputs) from the model into the controller to obtain the desired result in the process module, using sensors to measure temperature and other process conditions, monitoring the effects of the adjustments), and wherein the combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are saved in the memory to validate the model (Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0038], ¶[0051-52], ¶[0055], ¶[0079] details controller data is recorded in addition to data from the PCMD, transmitting data from a process module to a base station in real time or store for later transmission in memory, the recorded data includes temperature measurements from the hotplate temperature sensors (i.e. outputs / performance indicators) and the heat power delivered to the heating elements of the zones and the temperature setpoints and offsets used by the controller to determine the power delivered to the zones (i.e. input values) and operating parameters that determine the response of the controller to an error (difference between setpoint and measured temperature) such as PID constants and maximum and minimum power values may be recorded to be used in developing a model, i.e. saving the combinations of input values and performance indicators in the memory to validate the model), and wherein the saved combination of the one or more input values and the one or more performance indicators are used to evaluate subsequent execution of the industrial process (Bartlett ¶[0019], ¶[0078-79] details performing periodic auditing comparing process condition data with historic data or target data (i.e. saved combination of input and performance indicators) to determine if the process module is operating satisfactorily, if it is outside the specified limits then it may be necessary to perform reconciliation and/or model-based turning may be repeated). Claim 19 : Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2005/0267606 A1 to Bartlett et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0162062 A1 to Kiciman et al ., as applied to claim s 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2019/0272307 A1 to Laddha et al . Claim 5 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide a notification of no identified combination through the interface, when the one or more processors is unable to identify the combination associated with the one or more desired output values. Bartlett, as shown in ¶[0039-40] details using a model running on a personal computer / workstation to provide predictions of inputs from desired outputs, and Kiciman, as shown in ¶[0049-50], ¶[0073] details applying an inversion optimization to one or more desired outputs to generate a set of inputs that will yield the desired outputs, and that the simulator may be constructed out of any type of function or no function and as such is not always invertible (i.e. unable to identify the combination associated with the one or more desired output values), and providing outputs through a display screen; but Bartlett / Kiciman does not explicitly state providing a notification of no identified set of inputs (i.e. results) through the interface. However, Laddha teaches this remaining limitation, when a solving engine of a model (e.g. mathematical model) is unable to find a solution, it provides a notification indicating that the solving engine is unable to provide a solution for the model to the application (Laddha ¶[0035-36]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide a notification of no identified result (i.e. combination, per Bartlett/Kiciman) through the interface, when the one or more processors is unable to identify the results as taught by Laddha with the teachings of Bartlett in view of Kiciman, with the motivation “to manage optimizations of LP models” (Laddha ¶[0034]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide a notification of no identified result (i.e. combination, per Bartlett/Kiciman) through the interface, when the one or more processors is unable to identify the results as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett in view of Kiciman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Claim 14 : Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2005/0267606 A1 to Bartlett et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0162062 A1 to Kiciman et al ., as applied to claim s 1 and 18 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2010/0185422 A1 to Hoversten . Claim 6 : Bartlett in view of Kiciman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: save the combination and receive measures of physical outputs from the physical process when implementing input parameters associated with the combination; and Bartlett, as shown in ¶[0004], ¶[0040], ¶[0059-60], claim 14 details obtaining the predicted combination of input parameters from the desired outputs through model inversion, entering the parameter values into the controller to obtain the desired result, and also recording the outputs from sensors during the actual process conditions experienced during production; but does not explicitly state saving the combination (i.e. model parameters). However, Hoversten teaches this remaining limitation with a stochastic inversion method that estimates model parameters, and saves the model parameters as one element of a Markov Chain for each model (Hoversten ¶[0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include saving the model parameters (i.e. combination, per Bartlett) as taught by Laddha with the teachings of Bartlett in view of Kiciman, with the motivation “to derive accurate estimates of model error and model parameters” (Hoversten ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include saving the model parameters (i.e. combination, per Bartlett) as taught by Kiciman in the system of Bartlett in view of Kiciman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Bartlett (in view of Kiciman in view of Hoversten) also teaches the following: improve performance of the model using the combination and the received measures of the physical outputs (Bartlett Fig 3B, ¶[0034], ¶[0041], ¶[0065] details improving the model through tuning using both the feedback from the sensors measuring the process in the process module, and inverting the model to obtain the parameter values got SP1, SP2 and provide additional data points for model building and improving model accuracy). Claim 20 : Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 6. Additional Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wohlers et al., “Monitoring and control of production processes based on key performance indicators for mechatronic systems” (International Journal of Production Economics 220 (2020) details using key performance indicators for quality control and condition monitoring; storing results and measuring values against production processes . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5. 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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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. BRIAN TALLMAN Examiner Art Unit 3628 /BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 7 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 8 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 9 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 10 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 11 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 12 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 13 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 14 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 15 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 16 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 17 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 18 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 19 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 20 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 21 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 22 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 23 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 24 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 25 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 26 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 27 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 28 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 29 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 30 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 31 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 32 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 33 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 34 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 35 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 36 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 37 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 38 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 39 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 40 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 41 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 42 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 43 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 44 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 45 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 46 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 47 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 48 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,176 Page 49 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights