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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant broadly asserts that the claim amendments integrate any abstract idea into a practical application without specifically pointing out the reasons the claims are eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection has been updated below. Specifically, the amendments directed to the confidence intervals ranges and clusters of product quality attributes merely add additional details to the established abstract idea and no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application have been added.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 4-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not eligible for patenting. There are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility:
(a) first, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1); and
(b) second, a claimed invention must be directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not a judicial exception (unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception) (Step 2).
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1, 4-14 and 18-21 is/are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
Step 2:
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes. More specifically, independent claims 1, 14 and 21 recite:
receiving an indication of the at least one monitorable process parameter;
checking the indication against a calibration model to determine whether the at least one monitorable process parameter results in a product quality attribute within a preselected range;
wherein the calibration model comprises a mapping between the at least one monitorable process parameter and the at least one product quality attribute, the mapping defining:
a first range of the at least one monitorable process parameter, the first range comprising a confidence interval indicative that a product will have a desired product quality attribute within the preselected range; and
one or more second ranges within the first range, the one or more second ranges comprising one or more confidence intervals indicative of a cluster of product quality attributes associated with the at least one monitorable process parameter, each confidence interval being represented by a local cluster confidence ellipse around a respective cluster; and
initiating one or more actions based on receiving an indication that the at least one monitorable process parameter checked against the calibration model is determined to map to a position inside the first range and outside the one or more second ranges.
The claims recite data analysis steps to compare a process parameter against a calibration model and initiating actions based on the comparison. The steps are considered mental processes as they recite observation and evaluations that can be done in the mind or with pen and paper. The nominal recitation of computer elements in claim 21 does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instruction that when executed by a processor cause the computer system to perform the method. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 21 recites a monitoring unit comprising circuitry to perform the abstract idea. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 4-6 and 18-20 recite details of the actions comprise triggering an alert. This can be practically performed by pen and paper or in the mind and is therefore mental process. Claim 4-6 include no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 18-20 recite the computer readable medium with instruction executed by a computer which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 7 and 8 recite comparisons to a preselected threshold which can be practically performed by pen and paper or in the mind and is therefore mental process. There are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 9-13 recite details of indicating a correlation between quality attribute and process parameter which can be practically performed by pen and paper or in the mind and is therefore mental process. There are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system/software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach Applicant’s invention. The closest prior art, cited by examiner, includes: Martin et al, “Process performance monitoring using multivariate statistical process control”. Applicant’s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant’s remarks filed on July 6, 2026, pages 10-11, point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14). As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harynuk et al, US 2012/0259609 - AUTOMATED, OBJECTIVE AND OPTIMIZED FEATURE SELECTION IN CHEMOMETRIC MODELING (CLUSTER RESOLUTION) - the model describing the confidence ellipse, while L is a diagonal matrix containing eigenvalues for components 1 and 2 of the new model. The number of samples within the cluster permits the determination of the Hotelling T.sup.2 value for a given confidence limit
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights