DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-3 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/123858 filed 10/14/2021.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to CHINA 202011300812.X filed 11/19/2020.
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.
4. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process which represents a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-3 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of calculating theoretical values of wind based on measured and given values which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As recited in claim 1, “selecting a target area for estimation of theoretical reserves of wind, and extracting a coordinate range of the target area; wherein the coordinate range of the target area is a sequence of longitude and latitude of boundary inflection points in order; projected plane rectangular coordinates; or a description of a spatial geometric scale with a coordinate point as a reference” would be analogous to a person evaluating a set of data and extracting relevant values for calculation and thus fall under Mental Processes as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As recited in claim 1, “(2) presetting a spatial height of the target area in step (1); (3) obtaining meteorological data of a wind speed and an air density of the target area in step (2); wherein the meteorological data of the wind speed and the air density of the target area are data of one or more discrete points measured or calculated by numerical simulation methods; when meteorological data of the wind speed and air density of multiple discrete points are obtained, dividing the target area into small grids, a step size of a maximum grid is less than or equal to 1/10 of a distance from a nearest data point; the meteorological data of the air density is interpolated to a grid center point;” would be analogous to a person evaluating a set of data and extracting relevant values and performing calculations and thus fall under Mental Processes as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As recited in claim 1, “(4) according to the meteorological data obtained in step (3), calculating a theoretical wind reserves per unit area of the target area; (5) calculating an area size of the target area; wherein the area size of the target area a calculated by utilizing equal-area projection, geometric figure area calculation method, polygon area calculation method;” would be analogous to a person evaluating a set of data and extracting relevant values and performing calculations and thus fall under Mental Processes as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As recited in claim 1, “(6) according to the meteorological data of the wind speed and the air density obtained in step (3), the spatial height of the target area obtained in step (2), and the area size of the target area obtained in step (5), calculating to obtain regional theoretical reserves of wind.” would be analogous to a person evaluating a set of data and extracting relevant values and performing calculations and thus fall under Mental Processes as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 2-3 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation in claim 1 of “or with aids of AutoCAD, ArcGis, MapGis, and Mapinfor geographic information systems” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “or with aids of AutoCAD, ArcGis, MapGis, and Mapinfor geographic information systems” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-3 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation in claim 1 of “or with aids of AutoCAD, ArcGis, MapGis, and Mapinfor geographic information systems” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “or with aids of AutoCAD, ArcGis, MapGis, and Mapinfor geographic information systems” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further defines the formula to perform the calculation of respective claim 1 which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the formula to perform the calculation of respective claim 1 which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The term “small” in claims 1-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The recited “small grids” of claim 1, “small increment of height” of claim 2, and “small increment of height” in claim 3 are all relative terms and as such it is unclear how to ascertain the scope, metes, and bounds of the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 improperly refers back to itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. As per MPEP 608.01(n)(III) “In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain: (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.”
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-3 are allowable over the prior art of record pending resolving all intervening issues such as the 101 and 112 rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims.
Claim 1 recites A method for evaluating theoretical potential of wind comprising steps of: (1) selecting a target area for estimation of theoretical reserves of wind, and extracting a coordinate range of the target area; wherein the coordinate range of the target area is a sequence of longitude and latitude of boundary inflection points in order; projected plane rectangular coordinates; or a description of a spatial geometric scale with a coordinate point as a reference; (2) presetting a spatial height of the target area in step (1); (3) obtaining meteorological data of a wind speed and an air density of the target area in step (2); wherein the meteorological data of the wind speed and the air density of the target area are data of one or more discrete points measured or calculated by numerical simulation methods; when meteorological data of the wind speed and air density of multiple discrete points are obtained, dividing the target area into small grids, a step size of a maximum grid is less than or equal to 1/10 of a distance from a nearest data point; the meteorological data of the air density is interpolated to a grid center point; (4) according to the meteorological data obtained in step (3), calculating a theoretical wind reserves per unit area of the target area; (5) calculating an area size of the target area; wherein the area size of the target area a calculated by utilizing equal-area projection, geometric figure area calculation method, polygon area calculation method, or with aids of AutoCAD, ArcGis, MapGis, and Mapinfor geographic information systems; (6) according to the meteorological data of the wind speed and the air density obtained in step (3), the spatial height of the target area obtained in step (2), and the area size of the target area obtained in step (5), calculating to obtain regional theoretical reserves of wind.
The closest prior art of record includes:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110166787 which teaches methods and systems for providing wind energy density for a location, for example, for locating a wind turbine at the location are provided.
Ulazia, Alain, et al. "Global estimations of wind energy potential considering seasonal air density changes." Energy 187 (2019): 115938.
Kisito, Talla Pierre, et al. "Wind energy assessment at Bafoussam, Cameroon." Journal of Sustainable Development 8.9 (2015): 106.
Zare, A. H., R. Mehdipour, and E. Mohammadi. "Determining a Suitable Location for Wind Turbines Using Inverse Solution and Mast Data in a Mountainous Terrain." AUT Journal of Mechanical Engineering 2.2 (2018): 243-252.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above,
particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
8. All Claims are rejected.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110166787
Ulazia, Alain, et al. "Global estimations of wind energy potential considering seasonal air density changes." Energy 187 (2019): 115938.
Kisito, Talla Pierre, et al. "Wind energy assessment at Bafoussam, Cameroon." Journal of Sustainable Development 8.9 (2015): 106.
Zare, A. H., R. Mehdipour, and E. Mohammadi. "Determining a Suitable Location for Wind Turbines Using Inverse Solution and Mast Data in a Mountainous Terrain." AUT Journal of Mechanical Engineering 2.2 (2018): 243-252.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro, can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188