DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
1. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the limitations of claims 4, 5 and 9 that have been amended into claim 1 cannot be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. The applicant points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(1), which mentions that the training of a neural network is not directed to an abstract idea. (Remarks: pages 13-14)
2. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitations of claim 4 that has been amended into claim 1 does not make the claims eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, the limitations of formerly claim 4, now claim 1 that states “obtaining heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 recites “the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid comprising high-precision heat transfer data and low-precision heat transfer data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the high-precision heat transfer data being a data set obtained from experimental or numerical simulation data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the low-precision heat transfer data being a data set predicted by a dimensionless criterion correlation equation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid being an on-way flow rate of the fluid, a wall surface temperature, a temperature of a main flow of the fluid, a fluid pressure, a convective heat transfer coefficient and a passage characteristic length”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “preprocessing the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid”. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the preprocessing is being conducted. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and determining preprocessed heat transfer data of supercritical pressure fluid, the preprocessed heat transfer datum of the supercritical pressure fluid comprising preprocessed low-precision heat transfer data and preprocessed high-precision heat transfer data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a low-precision model according to the preprocessed low-precision heat transfer data based on a Gaussian regression equation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a high-precision model according to the preprocessed high-precision heat transfer data based on the Gaussian regression equation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a multi-precision model according to the low-precision heat transfer data, the low-precision model, the high-precision heat transfer data and the high-precision model by utilizing the Cokriging method based on the thermal equilibrium control model. This limitation is determining a multi-precision model which involves dividing the high-precision heat transfer data into a training set and a testing set, see paragraph [035] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the multi-precision model being a machine heat transfer model which receives dimensionless parameters of screened heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid as an input and the convective heat transfer coefficient as an output”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the screened heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid including the on-way flow rate of the fluid, the wall surface temperature, the temperature of the main flow of the fluid, the fluid pressure, the convective heat transfer coefficient and the passage characteristic length, the machine heat transfer model being used for determining on-way thermal parameters about the working fluid flowing and transferring heat in the fluid passages”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
For the limitations of formerly claim 5, now in claim 1 that states “dividing the high-precision heat transfer data into a training set and a testing set”. This limitation is dividing the high-precision heat transfer data into a training set and a testing set. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining the multi-precision model according to a formula: f2(X)=p(X)1(X)+3(X) by utilizing the training set, where f2(X) is a high-precision model; fI(X) is a low-precision model; p(X) is a scale factor for quantifying a relationship between outputs of the high-precision model and the low-precision model; 8(X) is a Gaussian process.”. This limitation is determining the multi-precision model according to a formula shown above. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites the same substantive limitations as claim 4 and are rejected using the same teachings.
3. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the manufacturing of a heat exchanger of claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant points to paragraph [0019] of the specification for support of the manufacturing of a heat exchanger integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. (Remarks: page 14)
4. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the recent amendment to claim 1 that states “forming the heat exchanger by engraving grooves on metal substrates as the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages of the heat exchanger according to a passage equivalent diameter, passage length, passage number and arrangements of cold fluid passages and hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger, to obtain cold substrates and hot substrates, and stacking and welding the cold substrates and the hot substrates alternately according to the arrangements of the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the engraving process is being conducted, see paragraph [04] of the specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
5. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the readjusting limitation of claim 1 shows how there’s an improvement to the heat transfer performance. The applicant points to paragraph [0019] of the specification for support of the readjusting improving the heat transfer performance. (Remarks: page 14)
6. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the readjusting limitation of claim 1 that states “readjusting the primary framework of the heat exchanger, proceeding to the dividing each of the fluid passages along a fluid flow direction and establishing a thermal equilibrium control model for each divided fluid passage based on the preliminary framework of the heat exchanger, for repeating, until the heat transfer area meets a limitation of pressure loss, when the determination of on-way thermal parameters result indicates that the heat transfer area fails to meet the a predetermined limitation of pressure loss” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the readjusting is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the forming limitation integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant points to the Diamond v. Diehr court case for support as to why the claim limitation integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. (Remarks: page 15)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above in section 4 of the current office action the forming limitation that states “forming the heat exchanger by engraving grooves on metal substrates as the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages of the heat exchanger according to a passage equivalent diameter, passage length, passage number and arrangements of cold fluid passages and hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger, to obtain cold substrates and hot substrates, and stacking and welding the cold substrates and the hot substrates alternately according to the arrangements of the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the engraving process is being conducted, see paragraph [04] of the specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the obtaining and engraving limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Remarks: pages 15-16)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the obtaining limitation of claim 1 that states “obtaining boundary conditions of the heat exchanger representing first working fluid parameters and second working fluid parameters amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, as stated above in section 8 of the current office action, the forming limitation that states “forming the heat exchanger by engraving grooves on metal substrates as the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages of the heat exchanger according to a passage equivalent diameter, passage length, passage number and arrangements of cold fluid passages and hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger, to obtain cold substrates and hot substrates, and stacking and welding the cold substrates and the hot substrates alternately according to the arrangements of the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the engraving process is being conducted, see paragraph [04] of the specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language also does not include a computer or components of a computer, but if written with, for example, a processor, the claim language would still not be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, adding the phrase “by a processor” to the claim language, would encompass the processor be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Response: Claim Objections
11. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the applicant doesn’t address the claim object to claim 1 given in the Final office action dated 6/30/25. However, the examiner notes that through the recent amendment, the claim objection is overcome. The claim objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the
rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 6
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 6 are directed towards a method and system, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “the first working fluid parameters having an inlet temperature, an outlet temperature, a pressure and a flow of the first working fluid, the second working fluid parameters having an inlet temperature, an outlet temperature, a pressure and a flow of the second working fluid”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the preliminary framework of the heat exchanger containing a passage equivalent diameter, a passage length, a passage number, and arrangements of the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages of the heat exchanger”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “dividing each of the fluid passages along a fluid flow direction and establishing a thermal equilibrium control model for each divided fluid passage based on the preliminary framework of the heat exchanger”. This limitation is dividing each of the fluid passages along a fluid flow direction and establishing a thermal equilibrium control model which is established through equations as shown in paragraph [016] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the fluid passages comprising the hot fluid passages and the cold fluid passages”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “each of the fluid passages having a plurality of the divided fluid passages”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “constructing a machine heat transfer model in combination with a Gaussian regression process and a Cokriging method based on the established thermal equilibrium control model”. This limitation is constructing a machine heat transfer model in combination with a Gaussian regression process and a Cokriging method. The Gaussian regression process uses mathematical equations that can used to predict an output, see attachment of a tutorial on Gaussian process regression. The Cokriging method uses additional observed variables in an equation that improves the precision of the interpolation of the variable of interest, see attachment of the definition of Cokriging. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining on-way thermal parameters about the working fluids flowing”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the on-way thermal parameters including a fluid temperature, a fluid velocity and a pressure loss”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a heat transfer area according to the on-way thermal parameters”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining whether the heat transfer area meets a target heat transfer area, to obtain a first determination result”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the thermal equilibrium control model being as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
57
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
qi = kiAi(.tm, i - tnci)
where qi is a heat flux in a i-th divided fluid passage; qm_ci is a flow of a cold fluid; qm_hi is a flow of a hot fluid; cp_hi is a specific heat capacity at constant pressure of the hot fluid; cpa is a specific heat capacity at constant pressure of the cold fluid; tm_ci is a temperature of the first working fluid at a central node of the i-th divided fluid passage; tm_hi is a temperature of the second working fluid at the central node of the i-th divided fluid passage; Ai is a heat transfer area in the i-th divided fluid passage; i represents the i-th divided fluid passage, and i+1 represents a next divided fluid passage relative to the i-th divided fluid passage.”. The thermal equilibrium control model is determined from the equations shown above. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid comprising high-precision heat transfer data and low-precision heat transfer data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the high-precision heat transfer data being a data set obtained from experimental or numerical simulation data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the low-precision heat transfer data being a data set predicted by a dimensionless criterion correlation equation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid being an on-way flow rate of the fluid, a wall surface temperature, a temperature of a main flow of the fluid, a fluid pressure, a convective heat transfer coefficient and a passage characteristic length”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “preprocessing the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid”. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the preprocessing is being conducted. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and determining preprocessed heat transfer data of supercritical pressure fluid, the preprocessed heat transfer datum of the supercritical pressure fluid comprising preprocessed low-precision heat transfer data and preprocessed high-precision heat transfer data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a low-precision model according to the preprocessed low-precision heat transfer data based on a Gaussian regression equation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a high-precision model according to the preprocessed high-precision heat transfer data based on the Gaussian regression equation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a multi-precision model according to the low-precision heat transfer data, the low-precision model, the high-precision heat transfer data and the high-precision model by utilizing the Cokriging method based on the thermal equilibrium control model. This limitation is determining a multi-precision model which involves dividing the high-precision heat transfer data into a training set and a testing set, see paragraph [035] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the multi-precision model being a machine heat transfer model which receives dimensionless parameters of screened heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid as an input and the convective heat transfer coefficient as an output”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the screened heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid including the on-way flow rate of the fluid, the wall surface temperature, the temperature of the main flow of the fluid, the fluid pressure, the convective heat transfer coefficient and the passage characteristic length, the machine heat transfer model being used for determining on-way thermal parameters about the working fluid flowing and transferring heat in the fluid passages”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “dividing the high-precision heat transfer data into a training set and a testing set”. This limitation is dividing the high-precision heat transfer data into a training set and a testing set. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining the multi-precision model according to a formula: f2(X)=p(X)1(X)+3(X) by utilizing the training set, where f2(X) is a high-precision model; fI(X) is a low-precision model; p(X) is a scale factor for quantifying a relationship between outputs of the high-precision model and the low-precision model; 8(X) is a Gaussian process.”. This limitation is determining the multi-precision model according to a formula shown above. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of obtaining boundary conditions of the heat exchanger representing first working fluid parameters and second working fluid parameters amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of adjusting a preliminary framework of the heat exchanger based on the obtained boundary conditions amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the adjusting is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of transferring heat in the fluid passages according to the machine heat transfer model amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “readjusting the primary framework of the heat exchanger, proceeding to the dividing each of the fluid passages along a fluid flow direction and establishing a thermal equilibrium control model for each divided fluid passage based on the preliminary framework of the heat exchanger, for repeating, until the heat transfer area meets a limitation of pressure loss, when the determination of on-way thermal parameters result indicates that the heat transfer area fails to meet the a predetermined limitation of pressure loss” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the readjusting is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “forming the heat exchanger by engraving grooves on metal substrates as the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages of the heat exchanger according to a passage equivalent diameter, passage length, passage number and arrangements of cold fluid passages and hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger, to obtain cold substrates and hot substrates, and stacking and welding the cold substrates and the hot substrates alternately according to the arrangements of the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the engraving process is being conducted, see paragraph [04] of the specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language also does not include a computer or components of a computer, but if written with, for example, a processor, the claim language would still not be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, adding the phrase “by a processor” to the claim language, would encompass the processor be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “obtaining boundary conditions of the heat exchanger representing first working fluid parameters and second working fluid parameters” and “transferring heat in the fluid passages according to the machine heat transfer model” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of adjusting a preliminary framework of the heat exchanger based on the obtained boundary conditions amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the adjusting is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “readjusting the primary framework of the heat exchanger, proceeding to the dividing each of the fluid passages along a fluid flow direction and establishing a thermal equilibrium control model for each divided fluid passage based on the preliminary framework of the heat exchanger, for repeating, until the heat transfer area meets a limitation of pressure loss, when the determination of on-way thermal parameters result indicates that the heat transfer area fails to meet the a predetermined limitation of pressure loss” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the readjusting is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “forming the heat exchanger by engraving grooves on metal substrates as the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages of the heat exchanger according to a passage equivalent diameter, passage length, passage number and arrangements of cold fluid passages and hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger, to obtain cold substrates and hot substrates, and stacking and welding the cold substrates and the hot substrates alternately according to the arrangements of the cold fluid passages and the hot fluid passages in the final framework of the heat exchanger” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the engraving process is being conducted, see paragraph [04] of the specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim does not include the additional element of a processor. However, if written with a processor as shown above, the claim(s) does/do 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, the additional element of the processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 6
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 6 recites “the boundary conditions comprising first working fluid parameters and second working fluid parameters”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “the first working fluid parameters comprising an inlet temperature, an outlet temperature, a pressure and a flow of the first working fluid, the second working fluid parameters comprising an inlet temperature, an outlet temperature, a pressure and a flow of the second working fluid”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “the preliminary framework of the heat exchanger containing a passage equivalent diameter, a passage length, a passage number, and arrangements of cold fluid passages and hot fluid passages of the heat exchanger”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “dividing each of fluid passages along a fluid flow direction and establishing a thermal equilibrium control model for each divided fluid passage based on the preliminary framework of the heat exchanger”. This limitation is dividing each of the fluid passages along a fluid flow direction and establishing a thermal equilibrium control model which is established through equations as shown in paragraph [016] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “the fluid passages comprising hot fluid passages and cold fluid passages, each of the fluid passages having a plurality of the divided fluid passages”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “constructing a machine heat transfer model in combination with a Gaussian regression process and a Cokriging method based on the thermal equilibrium control model”. This limitation is constructing a machine heat transfer model in combination with a Gaussian regression process and a Cokriging method. The Gaussian regression process uses mathematical equations that can used to predict an output, see attachment of a tutorial on Gaussian process regression. The Cokriging method uses additional observed variables in an equation that improves the precision of the interpolation of the variable of interest, see attachment of the definition of Cokriging. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “determining on-way thermal parameters about the working fluids flowing”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “the on-way thermal parameters comprising a fluid temperature, a fluid velocity and a pressure loss”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “determining a heat transfer area according to the on-way thermal parameters”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “determining whether the heat transfer area meets a target heat transfer area, to obtain a first determination result”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “the thermal equilibrium control model being as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
57
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
qi = kiAi(.tm, i - tnci)
where qi is a heat flux in a i-th divided fluid passage; qm_ci is a flow of a cold fluid; qm_hi is a flow of a hot fluid; cp_hi is a specific heat capacity at constant pressure of the hot fluid; cpa is a specific heat capacity at constant pressure of the cold fluid; tm_ci is a temperature of the first working fluid at a central node of the i-th divided fluid passage; tm_hi is a temperature of the second working fluid at the central node of the i-th divided fluid passage; Ai is a heat transfer area in the i-th divided fluid passage; i represents the i-th divided fluid passage, and i+1 represents a next divided fluid passage relative to the i-th divided fluid passage.”. The thermal equilibrium control model is determined from the equations shown above. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid comprising high-precision heat transfer data and low-precision heat transfer data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the high-precision heat transfer data being a data set obtained from experimental or numerical simulation data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the low-precision heat transfer data being a data set predicted by a dimensionless criterion correlation equation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid being an on-way flow rate of the fluid, a wall surface temperature, a temperature of a main flow of the fluid, a fluid pressure, a convective heat transfer coefficient and a passage characteristic length”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “preprocessing the heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid”. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the preprocessing is being conducted. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and determining preprocessed heat transfer data of supercritical pressure fluid, the preprocessed heat transfer datum of the supercritical pressure fluid comprising preprocessed low-precision heat transfer data and preprocessed high-precision heat transfer data”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a low-precision model according to the preprocessed low-precision heat transfer data based on a Gaussian regression equation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “determining a high-precision model according to the preprocessed high-precision heat transfer data based on the Gaussian regression equation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “determining a multi-precision model according to the low-precision heat transfer data, the low-precision model, the high-precision heat transfer data and the high-precision model by utilizing the Cokriging method based on the thermal equilibrium control model. This limitation is determining a multi-precision model which involves dividing the high-precision heat transfer data into a training set and a testing set, see paragraph [035] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “the multi-precision model being a machine heat transfer model which receives dimensionless parameters of screened heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid as an input and the convective heat transfer coefficient as an output”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “the screened heat transfer data of the supercritical pressure fluid including the on-way flow rate of the fluid, the wall surface temperature, the temperature of the main flow of the fluid, the fluid pressure, the convective heat transfer coefficient and the passage characteristic length