DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-4, 6, 10-14, and 58-66) and Species A1 (an “actual” fusion device) and B1 (real-time mode) in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP 818.01(a).
Claims 67-68 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 14 and 66 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species A2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C1 (determining whether a first state is the same as at least one state within a sequence of states) in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no serious search and/or examination burden because (1) all three species have already been searched by the USPTO in the PCT application, (2) a copy of the ISR/WO from the PCT application was provided with the filing of the instant application, (3) the subject matter was indicated in the ISR/WO as having novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, and (4) the instant application was filed with a PPH request and a preliminary amendment based on the ISR/WO. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons. Where an application includes claims directed to different embodiments or species that could fall within the scope of a generic claim, restriction between the species may be proper if the species are independent or distinct. MPEP 806.04. Merely because the claims in a corresponding application have been searched by another entity/examiner, the claims in a corresponding application have been indicated as having novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, and/or the application has attained special status under the PPH program does not preclude a requirement for an election between species. Additionally, there is a search burden for the identified species because the species require a different field of search e.g., employing different queries (directed towards the different methods for determining whether a disruption of the plasma will occur in Species C1 vs. C2 vs. C3); and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species (art teaching determining whether a disruption will occur by determining whether a first state is the same as at least one state withing a sequence of states would not necessarily also teach determining whether a disruption will occur by determining whether a criticality level of the first state satisfies a threshold criticality level and/or determining whether a disruption will occur by determining whether a difference between a criticality level of a first state and the corresponding criticality level of a most recent state satisfies a threshold criticality level difference). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 10-11, and 58-66 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species C2/C3), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-14, and 58-68 are pending in the application with claims 4, 10-11, 14 and 58-68 withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 6, and 12-13 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1 (two instances): “determining whether disruption of the plasma” should be amended to recite “determining whether the disruption of the plasma”
Claim 1: “the disruption of plasma” should be amended to recite “the disruption of the plasma”
Claim 1: “is same as” should be amended to recite “is the same as”
Claim 6: “when a difference in time ... satisfy a threshold difference” should be amended to recite “when a difference in time ... satisfies a threshold difference”
Appropriate correction is required.
Analysis - 35 USC § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”. 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to”. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula”. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment”. Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application”. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]’”. Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”. Id.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. 101: the USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 Guidance”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
The claims are first evaluated to determine if they are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 1 recites a method, and, therefore, is directed towards a process.
Step 1 – is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?: YES
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Step 2A, Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
It is determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, to “[a] method”, the function of which is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a generic computer or mental processes. Specifically, claim 1 recites the method comprises “receiving data”, “determining, based on the data and one or more physics-based models, an occurrence of a first event and a criticality level of the first event”, “determining an occurrence of a second event based on the data and the one or more physics-based models”, “generating a sequence of events based on the first event and the second event”, “determining ... a first state and a criticality level of the first state”, “identifying a sequence of states”, and “determining disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will not occur when the first state is same as at least one state within the sequence of states”. The method of claim 1 therefore relies on receiving and analyzing data.
It is determined that the “receiving data” limitation in claim 1 recites a mental process that can be performed by a human, or by a human using pen and paper, involving observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. In other words, a human can “receiv[e]” the data. The limitation does not appear to be limited to any particular acts or operations that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind as such process amounts to mental observations and/or evaluations. The limitation therefore falls within the mental process category of abstract ideas.
It is determined that the “determining”, “generating”, and “identifying” limitations in claim 1 recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Under the 2019 Guidance, these mathematical formulas, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations fall within the “mathematical concepts” groupings. Furthermore, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. There is no indication that the “computing device” is intended to perform any of the “receiving”, “determining”, “generating”, or “identifying” steps. Further, a mere recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “a computing device”) performing mathematical operations does not take the calculating out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim 1 also recites mental processes, which is a second one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Guidance.
Therefore claim 1 recites an abstract idea and we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One – does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?: YES
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Step 2A, Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Here, apart from the “receiving”, “determining”, “generating”, and “identifying” limitations, the only additional elements that are recited in claim 1 are the fusion data and “outputting to a computing device associated with a user, an indication identifying the first event and whether the disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur”. These additional elements (1) do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The additional element of “receiving data corresponding to operation of a fusion device” is merely directed towards an extra-solution activity and only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Further, these machines do not amount to the application of the judicial exception to a particular machine. For example, the “fusion device” is generic and used in its ordinary capacity. This feature only contributes nominally to the execution of the claimed method and is merely directed towards data gathering/field of use.
The additional element of the computer structure (“a computing device”) is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Adding a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Furthermore, the claim does no more than require generic, purely conventional computer elements. This feature therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The additional element of “outputting” data is merely directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/outputting. Therefore, this feature does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 2-3 recite “the one or more physics-based models are configured to output a deterministic result of whether the first event occurred” and “apply one or more physics-based rules”. As best understood by Examiner, the claims appear to recite additional mathematical operations/mental processes and/or are insignificant post-solution activities that are only tangentially related to the invention. Claim 6 further specifies the “generating the sequence of events” step of claim 1 and is therefore also directed towards an abstract idea. Claims 12-13 recite a sequential order of the “first event” and the “second event” of the “determining” steps and are therefore also directed towards an abstract idea. The claims do not impose a meaningful limit to the judicial exception as the claims merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea and/or insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two – does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?: NO
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As noted above, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
The pertinent issue is, namely, whether the additional elements recited in the claim (i.e., the claim element in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Apart from the limitations that recite an abstract idea, the only additional elements in claim 1 are the use of fusion data and computer structures, and “outputting” data. As discussed above, these elements are mere insignificant extra-solution activities, instructions to apply the exception to a generic computer, and/or limitations linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The computer structures are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, claim 1 broadly recites “a computing device associated with a user”. The disclosure also describes the computer system with a high-level of generality (FIG. 17, [0073], [0104]-[0106], [0140], [0155]-[0156]). Thus, the additional elements of the computer structures, described in generic terms, serve merely to output data and are well-known, routine, and conventional. Similarly, the “fusion device” is also a well-known, conventional, and routine component that was previously known in the industry, as evidenced by at least Sabbagh and Vu as applied below. This is further evidenced by the high-level of generality with which the disclosure and claims describe the fusion device with no apparent improvement to the fusion device structures themselves. The claimed computer system and fusion device are operated in their normal, ordinary capacities and there is nothing to suggest that “outputting ... an indication identifying the first event and whether the disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur” would change how the computer or fusion device operates beyond its normal, operating capacity.
As discussed above, claims 2-3, 6, and 12-13 are directed towards judicial exceptions and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims merely recite further embellishments on the abstract idea, reciting additional mathematical operations or mental processes, or insignificant post-solution activity that do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6, and 12-13 fail to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B – does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-3, 6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. As shown in the above analysis, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and lack an additional element that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first event and a criticality level of the first event”, “a second event”, “a sequence of events based on the first event and the second event”, “a first state and a criticality level of the first state, wherein the first state indicates an operational state ... at a first time”, “a sequence of states, wherein each state in the sequence of states indicates an operational state ... at a corresponding time prior to the first time”, and “at least one state within the sequence of states”. It is unclear the relationship between the various recited “event[s]”, “sequence of events”, “state[s]”, and “sequence of states”. For example, the claim recites “determining, based on the criticality level of the first event, whether a disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur, wherein determining whether the disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur comprises” along with steps of “determining” and “identifying”. However, none of these steps appear to use or consider in any manner the previously recited “criticality of the first event”. Further, it is unclear if the “sequence of states” includes the “first state” or if the “operational state[s]” are referring to the same “state”.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear if the “disruption” in the “determining disruption of the plasma will not occur” is the same as the “disruption” in the “determining ... whether a disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur”.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the one or more physics-based models are configured to output a deterministic result of whether the first event occurred”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “determining, based on the data and one or more physics-based models, an occurrence of a first event”. Parent claim 1 therefore appears to positively recite the occurrence of a “first event”. However, the term “whether” in claim 2 would appear to suggest that the “first event” may or may not have occurred. This renders unclear whether the claim requires the occurrence of a first event or not. Additionally, parent claim 1 previously recites “outputting ... an indication identifying the first event and whether the disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur”. It is unclear the relationship between the “output” in claim 2 and the “output[]” in parent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the one or more physics-based models are configured to apply one or more sets of physics-based rules to output the deterministic result of whether the first event occurred”. It is unclear to what the “one or more sets of physics-based rules” is applied. This further renders unclear how “apply[ing] ... rules” results in “output[ting]” a “deterministic result”.
Claim 6 recites “determining a first time at which the first event occurred” and “determining a second time at which the second event occurred”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “wherein the first state indicates an operational state of the fusion device or the plasma in the fusion device at a first time” and “wherein each state in the sequence of states indicates an operational state of the fusion device or the plasma in the fusion device at a corresponding time prior to the first time”. It is unclear the relationship between the various recited “time[s]”. For example, it is unclear if the “first time” in claim 6 is referring to the same time as the “first time” previously recited in parent claim 1.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 12-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting in Tokamaks” (“Sabbagh”).
Regarding claim 1, Sabbagh (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1, 4, 8) discloses a method comprising:
receiving data corresponding to operation of a fusion device (“tokamak”) (p. 3: “The radiated power profile (Ploss) can either be measured directly or can be estimated”; p. 4: “The information analysed for these modes along with plasma rotation profile and other plasma measurements produces predictive warnings for the individual modes, along with a total MHD event warning signal”);
determining, based on the data and one or more physics-based models, an occurrence of a first event (“individual events”) and an event criticality level of the first event (p. 1: “DECAF further aims to automatically determine the relation of the events and quantify their appearance to characterize the most probable and deleterious event chains, and also to forecast the onset of the events and chains”; p. 3: “DECAF event warning levels are determined by a flexible diagnostic and physics model ‘point’ system”, “The Greenwald density limit (event GWL) is included in DECAF as a universal empirical model for disruption forecasting.... This model has been added to the DECAF code including the radiated power, resistivity, and current density profiles as inputs”),
determining an occurrence of a second event based on the data and the one or more physics-based models;
generating a sequence of events (“chain”) based on the first event and the second event (p. 2: “at some point this ‘normal’ operational plasma state can be altered by many different ‘events’.... This alteration is considered as a chain of individual events, starting with a trigger event and evolving toward the plasma disruption.... DECAF analysis of device databases aims to automatically determine and provide understanding of this chain of events”);
determining, based on the criticality level of the first event, whether a disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur, wherein determining whether the disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur comprises:
determining, based on the sequence of events, a first state (e.g., set of “criteria”/“conditions”/“events” at a particular time) and a criticality level (“warning level”) of the first state, wherein the first state indicates an operational state of the fusion device or the plasma in the fusion device at a first time (p. 3: “several event criteria can be used in conglomerate to determine combined ‘levels’ that allow DECAF to issue event warnings. For example, at present, 15 separate criteria are used to determine the total MHD warning level for rotating MHD modes”; p. 4: “The information analysed for these modes along with plasma rotation profile and other plasma measurements produces predictive warnings for the individual modes, along with a total MHD event warning signal”); and
identifying a sequence of states, wherein each state in the sequence of states indicates an operational state of the fusion device or the plasma in the fusion device at a corresponding time prior to the first time (p. 4: “The information analysed for these modes along with plasma rotation profile and other plasma measurements produces predictive warnings for the individual modes, along with a total MHD event warning signal.... The code discriminates the toroidal mode number of the instabilities and tracks all modes greater than a specific amplitude.... DECAF events based on the mode evolution are also shown ... and events marking the locking of the modes.... A single ‘total’ MHD warning signal that varies with time is also shown”),
wherein determining whether disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur is further based, at least in part, on the first state and the sequence of states, wherein determining whether disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur further based, at least in part, on the first state and the sequence of states comprises determining disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will not occur when the first state is same as at least one state within the sequence of states (e.g., when the first state is the same as a state having a low MHD warning level; see state at t ~ 0s and t ~ 0.5s and corresponding “warning level” in FIG. 4) (p. 5: “the total warning level reaches high values, indicating a disruption onset. A total warning level of 4 indicates close proximity to the disruption.... Early in the discharge, MHD modes are also found, and core plasma rotation is low as the plasma starts up and typically transitions from counter-NBI rotation to co-NBI rotation. However, the mode frequencies are relatively high at this time, which is generally a safe condition. Later, near t = 0.25s, the MHD warning level increases as modes are again found but now with decreased and decreasing rotation frequency”); and
outputting to a computing device associated with a user, an indication identifying the first event and whether the disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur (FIGS. 4, 8).
Regarding claim 2, Sabbagh discloses the method of claim 1. Sabbagh discloses the one or more physics-based models are configured to output a deterministic result of whether the first event occurred (FIGS. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Sabbagh discloses the method of claim 2. Sabbagh discloses the one or more physics-based models are configured to apply one or more sets of physics-based rules to output the deterministic result of whether the first event occurred (FIGS. 3-4, p. 3: “DECAF event warning levels are determined by a flexible diagnostic and physics model ‘point’ system”, “The Greenwald density limit (event GWL) is included in DECAF as a universal empirical model for disruption forecasting.... This model has been added to the DECAF code including the radiated power, resistivity, and current density profiles as inputs; p. 4: “The power balance model is a local condition for island growth, therefore mode marginal stability would occur when Ploss/Pinput > 1 at the location of the island. This defines the DECAF event ‘island power balance’”).
Regarding claim 6, Sabbagh discloses the method of claim 1. Sabbagh discloses generating the sequence of events comprises (see FIGS. 4, 8):
determining a first time at which the first event occurred;
determining a second time at which the second event occurred; and
generating the sequence of events when a difference in time between the first time and the second time satisfy a threshold difference (p. 1: “DECAF further aims to automatically determine the relation of events and quantify their appearance to characterize the most probable and deleterious event chains, and also to forecast the onset of the events and chains, especially for events that experimentally manifest in close time proximity to the disruption”; p. 2: “at some point this ‘normal’ operational plasma state can be altered by many different ‘events’.... This alteration is considered as a chain of individual events, starting with a trigger event and evolving towards the plasma disruption”; p. 4: “DECAF events based on the mode evolution are also shown”; p. 7: “we see a critical warning for the individual n = 1 rotating MHD mode (MHD-n1) as a starting point for the chain. Note from the top frame that the low frequency n = 1 mode itself was detected far earlier – near t ~ 0.22s. However, the warning level for the activity was not determined to be sufficiently high then. The mode bifurcation (event BIF-n1) occurs 5 ms later”).
Regarding claim 12, Sabbagh discloses the method of claim 1. Sabbagh discloses the second event occurs prior to the first event (FIGS. 4, 8).
Regarding claim 13, Sabbagh discloses the method of claim 1. Sabbagh discloses the second event occurs after the first event (FIGS. 4, 8).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 12-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Integrated real-time supervisory management for off-normal-event handling and feedback control of tokamak plasmas” (“Vu”).
Regarding claim 1, Vu (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1-2, 6) discloses a method comprising:
receiving data corresponding to operation of a fusion device (p. 2: “This layer thus converts specific plant signals to generic continuous-value states of the plasma and actuators”);
determining, based on the data and one or more physics-based models, an occurrence of a first event (“off normal-event”, “ONE”, “neoclassical tearing mode”, “NTM”) and a criticality level of the first event (p. 1: “different ONEs categories are distinguished”, “a ONE monitor to classify the events”, “more stages are necessary to clearly classify the danger level, the reaction level for each ONE”; p. 2: “The tokamak-dependent layer includes various real-time (RT) state reconstruction codes for plasma and actuator states. This layer thus converts specific plant signals to generic continuous-value states of the plasma and actuators”, “a plasma and actuator event monitor categorizes the state representation of the plasma, the events and the actuators”; p. 3: “For each ONE, first the danger level and the ONE-reaction level are determined”);
determining an occurrence of a second event based on the data and the one or more physics-based models (p. 3: “a ONE to Scenario (OS) mapping is used to decide the appropriate control scenario based on a given set of ONEs and the associated ONE-reaction levels”; p. 4: “an OS mapping based on the combination of the ONE-reaction levels of all active ONEs”);
generating a sequence of events based on the first event and the second event;
determining, based on the criticality level of the first event, whether a disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur, wherein determining whether the disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur comprises:
determining, based on the sequence of events, a first state and a criticality level of the first state, wherein the first state indicates an operational state of the fusion device or the plasma in the fusion device at a first time (Table I, p. 2: “The tokamak-dependent layer includes various real-time (RT) state reconstruction codes for plasma and actuator states. This layer thus converts specific plant signals to generic continuous-value states of the plasma and actuators”, “a plasma and actuator event monitor categorizes the state representation of the plasma, the events and the actuators”; p. 3: “The classification of a ONE danger level is based either on one generic state ... or on a combination of various generic states from the plasma event monitor. On the other hand, in order to avoid ambiguity while several ONEs simultaneously appear and their combination can significantly change the situation, a virtual ONE using their combination should be created as a new independent event. For example, a locked mode in low danger level will really become significant if there is also an observed increase in radiated power. In this case, a combined event must be considered separately from the lock mode and the radiated power events”; p. 5: “the customized ONE reaction levels based on the danger level of each ONE”); and
identifying a sequence of states, wherein each state in the sequence of states indicates an operational state of the fusion device or the plasma in the fusion device at a corresponding time prior to the first time (Table 1, p. 3: “Two finite-state-machines are used to classify the danger level and the reaction level of each ONE. It is important to notice that the thresholds for the transitions from one state to another in the finite-state-machines are customized in the user interface as tunable parameters”),
wherein determining whether disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur is further based, at least in part, on the first state and the sequence of states, wherein determining whether disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur further based, at least in part, on the first state and the sequence of states comprises determining disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will not occur when the first state is same as at least one state within the sequence of states (e.g., when the first state is 0 or “normal”) (FIGS. 3-4, Table III, p. 2: “a strategy of supervisor decision to deal with ONEs ... which can lead to plasma disruption or plasma performance deterioration”; p. 3: “The classification of a ONE danger level is based either on one generic state ... or on a combination of various generic states from the plasma event monitor. On the other hand, in order to avoid ambiguity while several ONEs simultaneously appear and their combination can significantly change the situation, a virtual ONE using their combination should be created as a new independent event. For example, a locked mode in low danger level will really become significant if there is also an observed increase in radiated power. In this case, a combined event must be considered separately from the lock mode and the radiated power events”; p. 4: “an OS mapping [] based on the combination of the ONE-reaction levels of all active ONEs is thus necessary”, “we often have one normal, which is the desired/original/basic scenario”, “Depending on the reaction level associated with these ONEs as well as the pre-defined OS mapping, the control scenarios are different”; pp. 4-5: “The main purpose of disruption avoidance experiments is to avoid the abrupt loss of energy confinement, or even to recover the plasma to the previous stable states”; p. 5: “we derive the distance dne edge between the system states ... and the empirical disruption limit.... This distance is a key factor used by the supervisory layer to determine an appropriate control scenario.... The supervisor evaluates the dangers from these ONEs to switch between different scenarios: normal, recovery, and soft-shutdown, in which three sets of relevant control tasks are configured beforehand”, “the customized ONE reaction levels based on the danger level of each ONE”); and
outputting to a computing device associated with a user, an indication identifying the first event and whether the disruption of plasma in the fusion device will occur (p. 1: “the actions to deal with ONEs, once they are detected, are (flexibly) customized as a list of prioritized control tasks in different control scenarios. This leads to an automatic actuator resource assignment of the actuator manager and control (feedback) actions of the controllers”; p. 2: “a supervisor evaluates the occurrence of ONEs and decides the appropriate control scenario (list of control tasks), then activates and priorities relevant tasks[;] an actuator manager defines the best actuator resource allocation to active tasks by solving an optimization problem based on the available actuator resources and the resource requests from controllers; and later distributes commands to corresponding actuators”).
Regarding claim 2, Vu discloses the method of claim 1. Vu discloses the one or more physics-based models are configured to output a deterministic result of whether the first event occurred (FIGS. 2-4, p. 1: “different ONEs categories are distinguished”, “a ONE monitor to classify the events”; p. 2: “The tokamak-dependent layer includes various real-time (RT) state reconstruction codes for plasma and actuator states. This layer thus converts specific plant signals to generic continuous-value states of the plasma and actuators”, “a plasma and actuator event monitor categorizes the state representation of the plasma, the events and the actuators”).
Regarding claim 3, Vu discloses the method of claim 2. Vu discloses the one or more physics-based models are configured to apply one or more sets of physics-based rules to output the deterministic result of whether the first event occurred (FIGS. 2, 5-6, p. 5: “we derive the distance dne edge between the system states ... and the empirical disruption limit.... This distance is a key factor used by the supervisory layer to determine an appropriate control scenario”).
Regarding claim 6, Vu discloses the method of claim 1. Vu discloses generating the sequence of events comprises (see FIG. 6):
determining a first time at which the first event occurred;
determining a second time at which the second event occurred; and
generating the sequence of events when a difference in time between the first time and the second time satisfy a threshold difference (p. 4: “A control scenario will be chosen by the supervisor for each instant, thus the considered tasks in this scenario will be activated based on the task activation conditions (time intervals, event triggers, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 12, Vu discloses the method of claim 1. Vu discloses the second event occurs prior to the first event (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Vu discloses the method of claim 1. Vu discloses the second event occurs after the first event (FIG. 6).
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646