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 without traverse of Group II (claims 67-75) and Species A1 (an “actual” fusion device) and B1 (real-time mode) in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 58-66 and 76 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Groups I, III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 75 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species A2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/04/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 58-76 are pending in the application with claims 58-66 and 75-76 withdrawn. Claims 67-74 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “cause the system” should be amended to recite “cause the system to”. 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 67 recites a system, and, therefore, is directed towards a machine.
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 67 is directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, to “[a] system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions”, the function of which is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a generic computer or mental processes. Specifically, claim 67 recites the system “receive[s] data”, “determine[s], based on the data and one or more physics-based models, an occurrence of a collection of events ... and an event criticality level associated with each event in the collection of events”, and “determine[s] ... a warning level”. The system of claim 67 therefore relies on receiving and analyzing data.
It is determined that the “receiv[ing] data” limitation in claim 67 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 “receive” 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 “determin[ing]” limitations in claim 67 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. A mere recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “at least one processor”, “at least one memory including instructions”, “a computing device”) performing mathematical operations does not take the calculating out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim 67 also recites mental processes, which is a second one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Guidance.
Therefore claim 67 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 “receiv[ing]” and “determin[ing]” limitations, the only additional elements that are recited in claim 67 are the “at least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions”, fusion data, and “output[ting] a to a computing device, an indication identifying the collection of events and the warning level”. 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 elements of the computer structures (“at least one processor”, “at least one memory including instructions”, “a computing device”) are mere instructions 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. These features therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The additional element of “receiv[ing] 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. The “fusion device” is also not a positively recited feature of the claimed “system”. 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 “output[ting]” 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.
Claim 68 specifies the “determin[ing]” function of claim 67. Claims 69-71 recite additional “determin[ing]” (claims 69-71) and “identify[ing]” (claim 71) data functions 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 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 67 are the use of computer structures, fusion data, and “output[ting]” data. As discussed above, these elements are mere insignificant extra-solution activities and instructions to apply the exception to a generic computer, limitations linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities.
The computer structures are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, claim 67 recites “[a] system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions” and “a computing device”. These structures (e.g., processor, memory, instructions, computing device) are fundamental and well-known components of a computer1,2. The disclosure also describes the computer system with a high-level of generality (FIG. 17, [0155]-[0157]). Thus, the additional elements of the computer structures, described in generic terms, serve merely to analyze and generate 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 Vu, Hahn, and Sabbagh 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 “output[ting] ... an indication identifying the collection of events and the warning level” would change how the computer or fusion device operates beyond its normal, operating capacity.
As discussed above, claims 68-71 are directed towards judicial exceptions. The claims merely recite further embellishments on the abstract idea, reciting additional mathematical operations or mental processes, that do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 67-71 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 67-71 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 69-74 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 69 recites “the instructions ... further cause the system to: determine a chain criticality level associated with a chain of events” and “determine that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur when the chain criticality level associated with the chain of events, satisfies a threshold criticality level”. Parent claim 67 previously recites “a collection of events having effects linked in time”. The term “chain” suggests that the events are linked in some manner. However, parent claim 67 establishes that the “collection” of events are “linked in time”. It is therefore unclear the distinction between a “chain” of events and a “collection” of events. This further renders unclear the relationship between the “chain criticality level” and the “warning level” previously recited in parent claim 67. Parent claim 67 recites “determin[ing], based on the state of the plasma [which is represented by the collection of events and the event criticality level associated with each event in the collection of events], the warning level represents a risk that a disruption of the plasma will occur”. Thus, parent claim 67 also appears to recite determining whether disruption of plasma will occur based on some “level” associated with linked events. Is the “determin[ing]” in claim 69 different from the “determin[ing]” recited in parent claim 67?
Claim 70 is indefinite because the claim appears to be missing an element to complete the claim. Parent claim 67 recites “determin[ing] ... an occurrence of a collection of events..., wherein the collection of events and the event criticality level associated with each event in the collection of events represents a state of a plasma within the fusion device”. However, there is no prior recitation of, for example, determining an occurrence of a collection of events for the “one or more additional states”. Additionally, parent claim 67 previously recites “determine, based on the state of the plasma, a warning level”. It is unclear if claim 70 is intending to refer to the same “determin[ing]” and “warning level” previously recited in parent claim 67 (e.g., “wherein determining the warning level is further based, at least in part, on the sequence of states of the plasma”), refer to a different “determin[ing]” and “warning level” (e.g., “determine a warning level
Claim 71 is indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “first state” and the “first group of states” and the “second group of states”. This further renders unclear the relationship between the “warning level” previously recited in parent claim 67 and the “first warning level” and the “second warning level”. It is also unclear the relationship between the “determin[ing], based on the state of the plasma, a warning level, wherein the warning level represents a risk that a disruption of the plasma will occur” recited in parent claim 67 and the “determining that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur”.
Claim 72 is indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “operation of a fusion device” previously recited in parent claim 67 and the “an operation of the fusion device”. Further, as discussed above, it is unclear the relationship between the “state” previously recited in parent claim 67 (also referred to as the “first state” in parent claim 70) and the “second group of states”. It is therefore unclear if the “at least one state” refers to the “state”/“first state” or another state. Additionally, the relationship between the various “warning level[s]” is unclear: “a warning level” (claim 67), “a warning level” (claim 70), “a first warning level” (claim 71), “a second warning level” (claim 71), “the warning level” (claim 72).
Claim 73 is indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “control system” and the “control system” previously recited in parent claim 72. It is further unclear the relationship between the “one or more first actions” and “an operation of the fusion device” and the “one or more actions” and “an operation of the fusion device” previously recited in parent claim 72. This further renders unclear if the “reduc[ing] the warning level for the plasma” previously recited in parent claim 72 and the “revert[ing] a second state of the plasma to the first state of the plasma” may refer to the same desired result. Further, it is unclear the relationship between the various “states”: “a state of the plasma” (claim 67), “a first state of the plasma” (claim 70), “a sequence of states of the plasma” (claim 70), “one or more additional states of the plasma” (claim 70), “a first group of states” (claim 71), “all states in the first group of states” (claim 71), “a second group of states” (claim 71), “all states in the second group of states” (claim 71), “states of the plasma represented in the sequence of states of the plasma” (claim 73), “a second state of the plasma” (claim 73).
Claim 74 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “control system” is intending to refer to the “control system” previously recited in parent claim 72 or the “control system” previously recited in parent claim 73. It is further unclear the relationship between the “one or more second actions” and “an operation of the fusion device” and the “one or more actions” and “an operation of the fusion device” previously recited in parent claim 72 and the “one or more first actions” and “an operation of the fusion device” previously recited in parent claim 73. It is further unclear if the “reduc[ing] a warning level” is the same as the “reduc[ing] the warning level” previously recited in parent claim 72. This further renders unclear if the “reduc[ing] the warning level for the plasma” previously recited in parent claim 72, the “revert[ing] a second state of the plasma to the first state of the plasma” previously recited in parent claim 73, and the “reduc[ing] a warning level associated with the first state of the plasma” may refer to the same desired result. Further, it is unclear the relationship between the various “warning level[s]”: “a warning level” (claim 67), “a warning level” (claim 70), “a first warning level” (claim 71), “a second warning level” (claim 71), “the warning level” (claim 72), “a warning level” (claim 74), “a lower warning level” (claim 74).
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 67-74, 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 67, Vu (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) discloses a system (“advanced tokamak plasma control system”, “PCS”) comprising:
at least one processor (p. 4: “The proposed PCS has been implemented in MATLAB/Simulink, from which C code was generated and included in the TCV digital real-time control system”); and
at least one memory including instructions (p. 4: “The proposed PCS has been implemented in MATLAB/Simulink, from which C code was generated and included in the TCV digital real-time control system”) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive 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”);
determine, based on the data and one or more physics-based models, an occurrence of a collection of events (“off-normal-event”, “ONE”) having effects linked in time and an event criticality level (“danger level”) associated with each event in the collection of events, wherein the collection of events and the event criticality level associated with each event in the collection of events represent a state of a plasma within the fusion device (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”, “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”);
determine, based on the state of the plasma, a warning level (“control scenario”, e.g., “normal”, “recovery”, “backup”, “soft-shutdown”, “disruption-mitigation”), wherein the warning level represents a risk that a disruption of the plasma will occur (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”; 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”); and
output to a computing device, an indication identifying the collection of events and the warning level (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 68, Vu discloses the system of claim 67, wherein determining, based on the state of the plasma, a warning level comprises: determining that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur when the event criticality level of at least one event in the collection of events, satisfies a threshold criticality level (FIG. 5, Table III, p. 5: “we derive the distance dne edge between the system states ... and the empirical disruption limit”, “the danger level of the dne,edge is low ... when the distance is below the first critical threshold dcritical1, and is medium ... when the distance is below the second threshold dcritical2”).
Regarding claim 69, Vu discloses the system of claim 67, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 3-4, Table III):
determine a chain criticality level associated with a chain of events in the collection of events (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”); and
determine that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur when the chain criticality level associated with the chain of events, satisfies a threshold criticality level (FIG. 5, p. 5: “we derive the distance dne edge between the system states ... and the empirical disruption limit”, “the danger level of the dne,edge is low ... when the distance is below the first critical threshold dcritical1, and is medium ... when the distance is below the second threshold dcritical2”).
Regarding claim 70, Vu discloses the system of claim 67, wherein the state of the plasma comprises a first state of the plasma (e.g., events/state at time = (1) in FIG. 6), and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIG. 6):
identify a sequence of states of the plasma, wherein the sequence of states includes the first state of the plasma and one or more additional states (e.g., events/state at time = (2)) of the plasma linked in time to the first state of the plasma, each state of the plasma in the sequence of states of the plasma including a respective collection of events; and
determine a warning level is further based, at least in part, on the sequence of states of the plasma (p. 5: “The control scenario (third panel) is based on the combination of the reaction levels of the two ONEs, which is recovery if the highest danger level reaches medium from (2), otherwise it remains normal”).
Regarding claim 71, Vu discloses the system of claim 70, wherein determining a warning level based, at least in part, on the sequence of states of the plasma comprises (see FIG. 6):
determining a first group of states (e.g., states from time = (1) to time = (2)) in the sequence of states, wherein all states in the first group of states have a first warning level (e.g., “normal”);
determining a second group of states (e.g., states from time = (2) to time = (3)) in the sequence of states, wherein all states in the second group of states have a second warning level (e.g., “recovery”), wherein the second warning level is higher than the first warning level; and
determining that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur based on the first warning level and the second warning level (FIG. 5, p. 5: “The control scenario (third panel) is based on the combination of the reaction levels of the two ONEs, which is recovery if the highest danger level reaches medium from (2), otherwise it remains normal”).
Regarding claim 72, Vu discloses the system of claim 71, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 1-2, 6):
instruct a control system associated with the fusion device to perform one or more actions to change an operation of the fusion device based, at least in part, on the collection of events associated with at least one state in the second group of states (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 control scenario ... becomes a list of prioritized control tasks, which will ensure the plasma evolution is as close to the target scenario as possible”; p. 4: “Once the appropriate control scenario is selected based on the actual plasma situation, the relevant control tasks will be activated.... Depending on the reaction level associated with these ONEs as well as the pre-defined OS mapping, the control scenarios are different”),
wherein the one or more actions are selected to reduce the warning level for the plasma from the second warning level to the first warning level (p. 2: “A control scenario ... becomes a list of prioritized control tasks, which will ensure the plasma evolution is as close to the target scenario as possible”; p. 4: “Once the appropriate control scenario is selected based on the actual plasma situation, the relevant control tasks will be activated.... Depending on the reaction level associated with these ONEs as well as the pre-defined OS mapping, the control scenarios are different”).
Regarding claim 73, Vu discloses the system of claim 72, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 1-2, 6):
instruct a control system associated with the fusion device to perform one or more first actions to change an operation of the fusion device based, at least in part, on a time evolution of states of the plasma represented in the sequence of states of the plasma (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 control scenario ... becomes a list of prioritized control tasks, which will ensure the plasma evolution is as close to the target scenario as possible”; p. 4: “Once the appropriate control scenario is selected based on the actual plasma situation, the relevant control tasks will be activated.... Depending on the reaction level associated with these ONEs as well as the pre-defined OS mapping, the control scenarios are different”),
wherein the one or more first actions are selected to control the fusion device to revert a second state of the plasma to the first state of the plasma, the second state being later in time than the first state in the sequence of states of the plasma (p. 2: “A control scenario ... becomes a list of prioritized control tasks, which will ensure the plasma evolution is as close to the target scenario as possible”; p. 4: “Once the appropriate control scenario is selected based on the actual plasma situation, the relevant control tasks will be activated.... Depending on the reaction level associated with these ONEs as well as the pre-defined OS mapping, the control scenarios are different”).
Regarding claim 74, Vu discloses the system of claim 73, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 1-2, 6):
instruct the control system to perform one or more second actions to change an operation of the fusion device based, at least in part, on the time evolution of states of the plasma represented in the sequence of states of the plasma (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 control scenario ... becomes a list of prioritized control tasks, which will ensure the plasma evolution is as close to the target scenario as possible”; p. 4: “Once the appropriate control scenario is selected based on the actual plasma situation, the relevant control tasks will be activated.... Depending on the reaction level associated with these ONEs as well as the pre-defined OS mapping, the control scenarios are different”),
wherein the one or more second actions are selected to reduce a warning level associated with the first state of the plasma to a lower warning level (p. 2: “A control scenario ... becomes a list of prioritized control tasks, which will ensure the plasma evolution is as close to the target scenario as possible”; p. 4: “Once the appropriate control scenario is selected based on the actual plasma situation, the relevant control tasks will be activated.... Depending on the reaction level associated with these ONEs as well as the pre-defined OS mapping, the control scenarios are different”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 67-74, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Achievements and lessons learned from the operation of KSTAR plasma control system upgrade” (“Hahn”) in view of “Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting in Tokamaks” (“Sabbagh”).
Regarding claim 67, Hahn (newly cited) discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (“CPU”); and
at least one memory (“RAM”) including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive data corresponding to operation of a fusion device (Abstract).
Hahn does not appear to disclose the instructions cause the system to determine an occurrence of a collection of events and an event criticality level associated with each even as recited in claim 67. However, Hahn discloses the system is a plasma control system designed with high flexibility to add or change software, algorithms, and commands (p. 16: the PCS software continues changing in order to fulfill the various requests on suitable controls.... [T]he PCS was required to have a very high flexibility to add/remove new signals, add/modify algorithms, and add new commands to the newly connected actuators”).
Sabbagh (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1, 4) is similarly directed towards plasma control and teaches instructions for enhancing plasma control (Abstract). Sabbagh teaches instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive 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”);
determine, based on the data and one or more physics-based models, an occurrence of a collection of events (“events”) having effects linked in time and an event criticality level associated with each event in the collection of events, wherein the collection of events and the event criticality level associated with each event in the collection of events represents a state of a plasma within the fusion device (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”; 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”; p. 6: “the analysis produces the equivalent of ‘disruptivity diagrams’ showing the probability of a disruption occurring within a given parameter space of tokamak operation”);
determine, based on the state of the plasma, a warning level, wherein the warning level represents a risk that a disruption of the plasma will occur (p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... is used to automate analysis of tokamak data to determine chains of events that lead to disruptions and to forecast their evolution to inform plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 3: “several event criteria can be used in conglomerate to determine combined ‘levels’ that allow DECAF to issue event warnings”; p. 4: “A single ‘total’ MHD warning signal that varies with time is also shown. This warning is created by a set of criteria and can be used as a disruption predictor”; p. 5: “A total warning level of 4 indicates close proximity to the disruption for this model”); and
output to a computing device, an indication identifying the collection of events and the warning level (FIGS. 4, 8).
Sabbagh further teaches the instructions provide the advantages of determining chains of events that lead to disruptions and forecasting their evolution, allowing sufficient time for mitigation or full avoidance (Abstract). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instructions in Hahn’s system for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Hahn in order to enhance plasma stability, as suggested by Sabbagh, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 68, Hahn in view of Sabbagh teaches the system of claim 67. Sabbagh teaches determining, based on the state of the plasma, a warning level comprises: determining that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur when the event criticality level of at least one event in the collection of events, satisfies a threshold criticality level (FIGS. 1, 4, 8, p. 2: “a global magnetohydrodynamic instability (resistive wall mode, RWM) is identified by DECAF as the event chain trigger”; p. 3: “If the density at the island exceeds this limit ... then the island grows and can lead to plasma disruption”; 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’ (IPB)”; p. 5: “Near t ~ 0.7s more negative criteria occur: mode frequencies are blow past computed bifurcation frequency levels, the modes drop to very low frequency, and core plasma rotation is critically low. Late in the evolution in close time proximity to the disruption (t ~ 0.8s), a critical level of locked mode amplitude occurs.... [T]he DECAF analysis starts to show a significant change in the total MHD warning level about 180 ms earlier”; p. 7: “a critical warning for the individual n = 1 rotating MHD mode (MHD-n1) as a starting point for the chain”). Thus, Hahn, modified to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instructions, would have resulted in the features of claim 68.
Regarding claim 69, Hahn in view of Sabbagh teaches the system of claim 67. Sabbagh teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 1, 4, 8):
determine a chain criticality level associated with a chain of events in the collection of events (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”); and
determine that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur when the chain criticality level associated with the chain of events, satisfies a threshold criticality level (p. 5: “The warning model shown in Fig. 4 is comprised of 15 separate criteria.... A total warning level of 4 indicates close proximity to the disruption for this model”).
Thus, Hahn, modified to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instructions, would have resulted in the features of claim 69.
Regarding claim 70, Hahn in view of Sabbagh teaches the system of claim 67. Sabbagh teaches the state of the plasma comprises a first state of the plasma (e.g., events/state at time = 0.2s in FIG. 4), and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIG. 4; see also FIG. 8):
identify a sequence of states of the plasma, wherein the sequence of states includes the first state of the plasma and one or more additional states (e.g., events/state at time = 0.6s) of the plasma linked in time to the first state of the plasma, each state of the plasma in the sequence of states of the plasma including a respective collection of events; and
determine a warning level is further based, at least in part, on the sequence of states of the plasma (p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... is used to automate analysis of tokamak data to determine chains of events that lead to disruptions and to forecast their evolution to inform plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “Early in the discharge, MHD modes are also found, and core plasma rotation is low.... However, the mode frequencies are relatively high at this time, which is generally a safe condition. Later, near t = 0.25 s, the MHD warning level increases.... However, these frequencies are not critically low (no mode bifurcations are found) and plasma rotation is not low, so the warning level remains low.... Near t ~ 0.7s more negative criteria occur.... [T]he DECAF analysis starts to show a significant change in the total MHD warning level about 180 ms earlier”).
Thus, Hahn, modified to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instructions, would have resulted in the features of claim 70.
Regarding claim 71, Hahn in view of Sabbagh teaches the system of claim 70. Sabbagh teaches determining a warning level based, at least in part, on the sequence of states of the plasma comprises (see FIG. 4; see also FIG. 8):
determining a first group of states (e.g., states having a warning level of ~ 0) in the sequence of states, wherein all states in the first group of states have a first warning level (e.g., ~ 0);
determining a second group of states (e.g., states having a warning level of ~ 4.5) in the sequence of states, wherein all states in the second group of states have a second warning level (e.g., ~ 4.5), wherein the second warning level is higher than the first warning level; and
determining that disruption of the plasma in the fusion device will occur or is likely to occur based on the first warning level and the second warning level (p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... is used to automate analysis of tokamak data to determine chains of events that lead to disruptions and to forecast their evolution to inform plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “Early in the discharge, MHD modes are also found, and core plasma rotation is low.... However, the mode frequencies are relatively high at this time, which is generally a safe condition. Later, near t = 0.25 s, the MHD warning level increases.... However, these frequencies are not critically low (no mode bifurcations are found) and plasma rotation is not low, so the warning level remains low.... Near t ~ 0.7s more negative criteria occur.... [T]he DECAF analysis starts to show a significant change in the total MHD warning level about 180 ms earlier”).
Thus, Hahn, modified to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instruction, would have resulted in the features of claim 71.
Regarding claim 72, Hahn in view of Sabbagh teaches the system of claim 71. Sabbagh teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 1, 4):
instruct a control system associated with the fusion device to perform one or more actions to change an operation of the fusion device based, at least in part, on the collection of events associated with at least one state in the second group of states (Abstract, p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... is used to automate analysis of tokamak data to determine chains of events that lead to disruptions and to forecast their evolution to inform plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “the DECAF analysis starts to show a significant change in the total MHD warning level about 180 ms earlier, providing far better advanced notice of the potential disruption allowing the potential for control systems to alter plasma stability to avoid disruption”, “forecasting such events to cue profile control systems”),
wherein the one or more actions are selected to reduce the warning level for the plasma from the second warning level to the first warning level (Abstract, p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... inform[s] plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “allowing the potential for control systems to alter plasma stability to avoid disruption”, “forecasting such events to cue profile control systems”).
Thus, Hahn, modified to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instruction, would have resulted in the features of claim 72.
Regarding claim 73, Hahn in view of Sabbagh teaches the system of claim 72. Sabbagh teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 1, 4):
instruct a control system associated with the fusion device to perform one or more first actions to change an operation of the fusion device based, at least in part, on a time evolution of states of the plasma represented in the sequence of states of the plasma (Abstract, p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... is used to automate analysis of tokamak data to determine chains of events that lead to disruptions and to forecast their evolution to inform plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “the DECAF analysis starts to show a significant change in the total MHD warning level about 180 ms earlier, providing far better advanced notice of the potential disruption allowing the potential for control systems to alter plasma stability to avoid disruption”, “forecasting such events to cue profile control systems”),
wherein the one or more first actions are selected to control the fusion device to revert a second state of the plasma to the first state of the plasma, the second state being later in time than the first state in the sequence of states of the plasma (Abstract, p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... inform[s] plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “allowing the potential for control systems to alter plasma stability to avoid disruption”, “forecasting such events to cue profile control systems”).
Thus, Hahn, modified to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instruction, would have resulted in the features of claim 73.
Regarding claim 74, Hahn in view of Sabbagh teaches the system of claim 73. Sabbagh teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to (see FIGS. 1, 4):
instruct the control system to perform one or more second actions to change an operation of the fusion device based, at least in part, on the time evolution of states of the plasma represented in the sequence of states of the plasma (Abstract, p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... is used to automate analysis of tokamak data to determine chains of events that lead to disruptions and to forecast their evolution to inform plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “the DECAF analysis starts to show a significant change in the total MHD warning level about 180 ms earlier, providing far better advanced notice of the potential disruption allowing the potential for control systems to alter plasma stability to avoid disruption”, “forecasting such events to cue profile control systems”),
wherein the one or more second actions are selected to reduce a warning level associated with the first state of the plasma to a lower warning level (Abstract, p. 1: “The Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting Code (DECAF) ... inform[s] plasma profile and mode control systems aimed to avoid, or if needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of a disruption”; p. 5: “allowing the potential for control systems to alter plasma stability to avoid disruption”, “forecasting such events to cue profile control systems”).
Thus, Hahn, modified to include Sabbagh’s disruption risk instruction, would have resulted in the features of claim 74.
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
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
2 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199688975.001.0001/acref-9780199688975-e-936?rskey=x4pGvZ&result=1