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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2019-230997, filed on 12/23/2019 and Application No. JP2020-172750, filed on 10/13/2020.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“acquirer” recited in claims 1 and 7
“comparator” recited in claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9
“generator” recited in claims 1, 6, and 9-12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specification at paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0052] discloses “acquiring unit,” “comparing unit” and “generating unit” for performing the functions of the “acquirer,” “comparator” and “generator,” respectively. Therefore, the “acquirer,” “comparator” and “generator” are interpreted as “acquiring unit,” “comparing unit” and “generating unit,” respectively. Furthermore, specification at paragraph [0042] recites: “The acquiring unit 121, the comparing unit 122, and the generating unit 123 used may be, for example, a processor (not illustrated) and a memory (not illustrated) having instructions stored therein. Alternatively, the acquiring unit 121, the comparing unit 122, and the generating unit 123 used may be a dedicated electronic circuit. The dedicated electronic circuit may be a single semiconductor integrated circuit, or may be separate electronic circuits among the acquiring unit 121, the comparing unit 122, and the generating unit 123.” Therefore, the “acquirer,” “comparator” and “generator” are interpreted as any devices discussed above, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a device, which is a machine, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claims 13-14 are directed to a system, which is a machine, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-16 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-16 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution being calculated by using different boundary conditions” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts. Performing a numerical analysis with boundary conditions covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas.
The limitation “compares a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector included in the first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity vector included in the second flow-velocity distribution with a first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of regions within the predetermined space” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector and mentally calculating or determining their difference mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “generates … at least one of first flow information or second flow information based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution if the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and/or a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Claim 2 discloses that the first/second flow information includes a first/second flow-velocity vector. Generating/calculating a velocity vector covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas. It also covers a mental process because it amounts to someone mentally observing the flow-velocity and calculating or determining a vector mentally or with a pen and paper. Moreover, claim 3 discloses that the first/second flow information includes an age of air. Specification at paragraph [0117] discloses that the age of air distribution is calculated by a numerical fluid analysis using a boundary condition. This covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“an acquirer”
“acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space”
“a comparator”
“a generator”
“outputs …”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “an acquirer,” “a comparator” and “a generator” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A device such as a processor is a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “outputs …” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Outputting data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element “acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space” is a data gathering activity that falls under receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Other additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2:
The limitations of claim 2 under broadest reasonable interpretation cover mathematical concepts; and/or a mental process as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See the analysis for claim 1 for a detailed analysis.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3:
The limitations of claim 3 under broadest reasonable interpretation cover mathematical concepts; and/or a mental process as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See the analysis for claim 1 for a detailed analysis.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4:
The limitation “calculates the difference value based on magnitude of a difference vector between the first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Calculating a difference between values covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas. It also covers a mental process of mentally making an evaluation.
The limitation “the comparator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the comparator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5:
The limitation “calculates the difference value based on a difference between magnitude of the first flow-velocity vector and magnitude of the second flow-velocity vector” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Calculating a difference between values covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas. It also covers a mental process of mentally making an evaluation.
The limitation “the comparator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the comparator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 6:
The limitation “wherein if the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space, … generates … a difference vector between the first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector as third flow information” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Generating a difference vector amounts to calculating a difference between values which covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas and a mental process of mentally making an evaluation.
The limitations “the generator” and “outputs …” are additional elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “outputs …” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Outputting data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
The limitation “sets the first predetermined threshold value based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution with respect to each time point of the time sequence” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. According to claim 8 and the description of specification at paragraphs [0108], setting a predetermined threshold value amounts to someone mentally observing a difference value and selecting an appropriate threshold value among a plurality of threshold values.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“the acquirer”
“acquires a time sequence of each of the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution”
“the comparator”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “the acquirer” and “the comparator” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “acquires a time sequence of each of the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements “the acquirer” and “the comparator” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “acquires a time sequence of each of the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution” is a data gathering activity that falls under receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 7 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation “sets the first predetermined threshold value based on a number of regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each time point of the time sequence” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process as explained in the analysis for claim 7. See the analysis for claim 7 for a detailed analysis.
The limitation “the comparator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the comparator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “compares an age of air based on the second flow-velocity distribution with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space with a second predetermined threshold value” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the age of air and the threshold value and making a judgment.
The limitation “generates … region information indicating a region where the age of air is larger than or equal to the second predetermined threshold value” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Specification at paragraph [0121] discloses that a region information indicates a region having the second age-of-air higher than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. Therefore, generating a region information amounts to someone mentally observing age of air values for regions and mentally determining regions with an age of air value higher than a threshold.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“the comparator”
“the generator”
“outputs …”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “the comparator” and “the generator” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “outputs …” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Outputting data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 10:
The limitation “groups second flow information about a first region and second flow information about a second region into a single piece of second flow information, the first region being included in two or more regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value, the second region being included in the two or more regions and being different from the first region” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, grouping information into a single piece of information covers someone mentally observing pieces of information and deciding on a grouping of the pieces of information.
The limitation “the generator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11:
The limitation “groups together the second flow information about the first region and the second flow information about the second region in accordance with a distance between the first region and the second region and a difference between the second flow information about the first region and the second flow information about the second region” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, grouping information into a single piece of information covers someone mentally observing pieces of information and deciding on a grouping of the pieces of information.
The limitation “the generator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 12:
The limitation “determines whether or not a variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies a predetermined condition in a predetermined region within the predetermined space” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the variation and the predetermined condition and making a judgment.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“the generator”
“wherein if the generator determines that the variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies the predetermined condition, the generator outputs at least one of the first flow information or the second flow information”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “wherein if the generator determines that the variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies the predetermined condition, the generator outputs at least one of the first flow information or the second flow information” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Outputting data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 13:
The limitation “information processing device according to claim 1” is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
The limitation “a display device that displays the first flow information and the second flow information output from the information processing device” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “a display device that displays the first flow information and the second flow information output from the information processing device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A display device is a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 14:
The limitation “wherein the display device displays the first flow information and the second flow information in different colors” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “wherein the display device displays the first flow information and the second flow information in different colors” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Displaying data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 14 is not eligible.
Claims 15 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are not eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrone et al. (“A multi-physical simulation on the IAQ in a movie theatre equipped by different ventilating systems”), hereinafter Petrone, in view of Hu et al. (“Determination of the optimal control parameter range of air supply in an aircraft cabin”), hereinafter Hu, in further view of Healey et al. (US20150331977A1), hereinafter Healey.
Regarding claim 1, Petrone discloses
acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space (Pg. 21, Abstract: “Momentum, energy and mass conservation equations are solved in order to highlight velocity fields, temperature distributions and carbon dioxide levels in each condition.”) (Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Figs. 3-5),
the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution being calculated by using different boundary conditions (Pg. 21, Abstract: “The paper deals with a numerical multi-physical investigation on performance assured by different ventilating systems in supplying air quality and comfort conditions in a movie theatre hall.”) (Pg. 22, Right column: “the present paper deals with a numerical investigation on the performance of 3 different heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in terms of IAQ and thermal comfort in a small movie theatre hall.”) (Pg. 24, Left column: “Equations (1) − (4) have been firstly solved in their steady form with boundary conditions reported in Table 2. Values of parameters appearing in Table 2 are specified in Table 3 for each ventilating system.”) (Table 2 shows boundary conditions; Table 3 shows how different boundary conditions were used for each system.);
a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector included in the first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity vector included in the second flow-velocity distribution (Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”); and
generates and outputs at least one of first flow information or second flow information based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution (Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Figs. 3-5).
Petrone does not explicitly disclose
an acquirer;
a comparator;
a generator;
compares a difference value … with a first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of regions within the predetermined space; and
if the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space.
However, Hu teaches comparing a difference value of airflow parameters such as velocity for a plurality of solutions to a predetermined threshold (Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”).
Petrone and Hu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of simulating fluid dynamics and processing data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this teaching for comparing the difference between different solutions to a predetermined threshold of Hu into Petrone to compare the difference value between a first flow-velocity vector and a second flow-velocity vector with a first predetermined threshold value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so allows clustering solutions that are similar, which allows finding an optimal solution (Hu, Pg. 469: “If solutions in a cluster are in continuous and uniform distribution, the entire domain of this cluster can be seen as optimal. Therefore, the cluster analysis is used to find the clusters of continuous optimal solutions. … When using cluster analysis, different kinds of distance metric can be chosen to quantify similarity of the solutions. … In a large cluster, if the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions is less than some certain threshold, the large cluster is thought to be continuous for the continuous flow field in a cabin.”).
Therefore, the combination of Petrone and Hu teaches
compares a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector included in the first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity vector included in the second flow-velocity distribution with a first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of regions within the predetermined space (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”).
Petrone/Hu still does not explicitly teach
an acquirer;
a comparator;
a generator; and
if the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space.
However, Healey teaches
a processor for performing airflow analysis ([0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”); and
selectively generating output based on a comparison to a predetermined threshold ([0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”).
Petrone/Hu and Healey are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of airflow modeling and analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching for using a processor from Healey into Petrone/Hu to perform the analysis on a computer such as a processor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Healey for selectively generating an output that exceeds a predetermined threshold to modify Petrone/Hu to output flow information if the difference value is larger than or equal to a predetermined threshold.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the processor of Healey because using such a computer allows the system to be connected to various devices such as a communication network and interface devices that would facilitate the process (Healey, [0099]: “Components of computer system 162 may be coupled by an interconnection element such as interconnection element 174.”) (Healey, [0100]: “Computer system 162 also includes one or more interface devices 176 such as input devices, output devices and combination input/output devices.”). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings for selectively generating an output that exceeds a predetermined threshold from Healey because doing so would allow a user to only see and focus on the desired information, allowing a more straightforward and effective delivery of information (Healey, [0073]: “In other examples, in step 504, the determined airflow can be rounded up or down to provide a more straightforward airflow display. … For example, a data center designer or operator may desire to see more or less detailed representation of airflow by specifying the threshold, such as for example 0.5%, 1%, 5% or threshold amounts therebetween.”).
Therefore, the combination of Petrone/Hu and Healey teaches
an acquirer that acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space (Petrone, Pg. 21, Abstract: “Momentum, energy and mass conservation equations are solved in order to highlight velocity fields, temperature distributions and carbon dioxide levels in each condition.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”);
a comparator that compares a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector included in the first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity vector included in the second flow-velocity distribution with a first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of regions within the predetermined space (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”); and
a generator that generates and outputs at least one of first flow information or second flow information based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution if the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
Regarding claim 2, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the first flow information includes a first flow-velocity vector in a region having the difference value larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”), and
wherein the second flow information includes a second flow-velocity vector in a region having the difference value larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 3, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the first flow information includes at least one of a predicted mean vote or an age of air in a region having the difference value larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value, the at least one of the predicted mean vote or the age of air being derived based on the first flow-velocity distribution (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Left column: “The “mean age of air” τ (in seconds) has been computed for the studied ventilating layouts. In Fig. 15 the time evolution of the mean age of air, evaluated in a point located close to the head of the person seated in the 6th row, is diagrammed for MAD, PAD and UFM system.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Right column: “This different behavior is better highlighted by Figs. 16−18, where the computed mean age of air, evaluated for t = 3600 seconds, is plotted in color-scaled maps overall the air volume for the investigated systems.”) (Petrone, Figs. 16-18) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”), and
wherein the second flow information includes at least one of a predicted mean vote or an age of air in a region having the difference value larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value, the at least one of the predicted mean vote or the age of air being derived based on the second flow-velocity distribution (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Left column: “The “mean age of air” τ (in seconds) has been computed for the studied ventilating layouts. In Fig. 15 the time evolution of the mean age of air, evaluated in a point located close to the head of the person seated in the 6th row, is diagrammed for MAD, PAD and UFM system.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Right column: “This different behavior is better highlighted by Figs. 16−18, where the computed mean age of air, evaluated for t = 3600 seconds, is plotted in color-scaled maps overall the air volume for the investigated systems.”) (Petrone, Figs. 16-18) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 4, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the comparator calculates the difference value based on magnitude of a difference vector between the first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 473, Right column: “The maximum magnitude of standardized minimum distance is about 1.3.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 5, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the comparator calculates the difference value based on a difference between magnitude of the first flow-velocity vector and magnitude of the second flow-velocity vector (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “Normalize the optimal solutions. Because the magnitudes of air supply velocity, angle and temperature are in different scales, it is necessary to normalize the optimal solutions. The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 6, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein if the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space, the generator further generates and outputs a difference vector between the first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector as third flow information (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 7, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the acquirer acquires a time sequence of each of the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution (Petrone, Pg. 24, Right column: “Once the steady solutions were achieved, they have been also used as initial conditions for time-dependent analyses, when breathing activity was simulated by considering periodic functions for the airflow rate”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Right column: “Time integration of governing equations has been otherwise performed applying an implicit differential-algebraic (IDA) solver (Hindmarsh et al. 2005), which uses variable-order and variable-step-size backward differentiation formulas (BDF). Because the time-marching scheme is implicit, a nonlinear system of equations must be solved each time step.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Petrone/Hu does not explicitly disclose setting a threshold value with respect to each time point of the time sequence.
However, Healey teaches setting a threshold value with respect to each time point of the time sequence ([0091]: “The airflow path visualization method can also be used to display cooling performance of a data center as a result of a transient analysis. … The computer system then determines the time period to be analyzed and breaks the overall time period down into a number of discrete periods between events. The computer system can then determine airflow patterns and temperatures for the starting conditions (e.g., steady-state conditions before a power failure at t=0). Then, the computer system can compute airflow patterns and temperatures for each time period to be analyzed.”) ([0073]: “In one example, the threshold may be set by a designer or operator of the data center via the interface 104. For example, a data center designer or operator may desire to see more or less detailed representation of airflow by specifying the threshold, such as for example 0.5%, 1%, 5% or threshold amounts therebetween.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this concept of setting a desired threshold value with respect to each time point of the time sequence in a transient analysis from Healey into Petrone/Hu to set a desired first predetermined threshold value based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution with respect to each time point of the time sequence.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because airflow analysis involves transient events, and the ability to set a threshold for each time point in the time sequence being analyzed would allow analyzing transient events of the airflow, which would make the analysis more comprehensive and accurate (Healey, [0091]: “The airflow path visualization method can also be used to display cooling performance of a data center as a result of a transient analysis. The computer system may provide modeling of airflow for a proposed layout of data center equipment and also provide prediction of cooling performance for an installed or planned data center which incorporates the effect of transient events”).
Therefore, the combination of Petrone/Hu and Healey teaches
wherein the comparator further sets the first predetermined threshold value based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution with respect to each time point of the time sequence (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Petrone, Pg. 24, Right column: “Once the steady solutions were achieved, they have been also used as initial conditions for time-dependent analyses, when breathing activity was simulated by considering periodic functions for the airflow rate”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Right column: “Time integration of governing equations has been otherwise performed applying an implicit differential-algebraic (IDA) solver (Hindmarsh et al. 2005), which uses variable-order and variable-step-size backward differentiation formulas (BDF). Because the time-marching scheme is implicit, a nonlinear system of equations must be solved each time step.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0091]: “The airflow path visualization method can also be used to display cooling performance of a data center as a result of a transient analysis. … The computer system then determines the time period to be analyzed and breaks the overall time period down into a number of discrete periods between events. The computer system can then determine airflow patterns and temperatures for the starting conditions (e.g., steady-state conditions before a power failure at t=0). Then, the computer system can compute airflow patterns and temperatures for each time period to be analyzed.”) (Healey, [0073]: “In one example, the threshold may be set by a designer or operator of the data center via the interface 104. For example, a data center designer or operator may desire to see more or less detailed representation of airflow by specifying the threshold, such as for example 0.5%, 1%, 5% or threshold amounts therebetween.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
Regarding claim 8, Petrone/Hu does not explicitly teach
sets the first predetermined threshold value based on a number of regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each time point of the time sequence.
However, Healey teaches modifying the predetermined threshold based on the number of areas in a predetermined space where the airflow value is above a certain threshold ([0073]: “In step 504, the computer system determines how many local cooling sources capture a fraction of the rack's airflow above a certain threshold. In one embodiment, a threshold can be established to reduce the number of airflow paths displayed. For example, for clarity purposes airflow determined to have little impact on cooling equipment in the data center (a small number or a fraction) can removed in the airflow visualization.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this concept of selecting a threshold based on the number of relevant regions into Petrone/Hu to set the first predetermined threshold value based on a number of regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so allows selecting a threshold that would capture only relevant or desired information, allowing a more straightforward and effective delivery of information (Healey, [0073]: “In one embodiment, a threshold can be established to reduce the number of airflow paths displayed. For example, for clarity purposes airflow determined to have little impact on cooling equipment in the data center (a small number or a fraction) can removed in the airflow visualization. In other examples, in step 504, the determined airflow can be rounded up or down to provide a more straightforward airflow display.”).
Therefore, the combination of Petrone/Hu and Healey teaches
wherein the comparator sets the first predetermined threshold value based on a number of regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each time point of the time sequence (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Petrone, Pg. 24, Right column: “Once the steady solutions were achieved, they have been also used as initial conditions for time-dependent analyses, when breathing activity was simulated by considering periodic functions for the airflow rate”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Right column: “Time integration of governing equations has been otherwise performed applying an implicit differential-algebraic (IDA) solver (Hindmarsh et al. 2005), which uses variable-order and variable-step-size backward differentiation formulas (BDF). Because the time-marching scheme is implicit, a nonlinear system of equations must be solved each time step.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0091]: “The airflow path visualization method can also be used to display cooling performance of a data center as a result of a transient analysis. … The computer system then determines the time period to be analyzed and breaks the overall time period down into a number of discrete periods between events. The computer system can then determine airflow patterns and temperatures for the starting conditions (e.g., steady-state conditions before a power failure at t=0). Then, the computer system can compute airflow patterns and temperatures for each time period to be analyzed.”) (Healey, [0073]: “In step 504, the computer system determines how many local cooling sources capture a fraction of the rack's airflow above a certain threshold. In one embodiment, a threshold can be established to reduce the number of airflow paths displayed. For example, for clarity purposes airflow determined to have little impact on cooling equipment in the data center (a small number or a fraction) can removed in the airflow visualization.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
Regarding claim 9, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the comparator further compares an age of air based on the second flow-velocity distribution with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space with a second predetermined threshold value (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Left column: “The “mean age of air” τ (in seconds) has been computed for the studied ventilating layouts. In Fig. 15 the time evolution of the mean age of air, evaluated in a point located close to the head of the person seated in the 6th row, is diagrammed for MAD, PAD and UFM system.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Right column: “This different behavior is better highlighted by Figs. 16−18, where the computed mean age of air, evaluated for t = 3600 seconds, is plotted in color-scaled maps overall the air volume for the investigated systems.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”), and
wherein the generator further generates and outputs region information indicating a region where the age of air is larger than or equal to the second predetermined threshold value (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Left column: “The “mean age of air” τ (in seconds) has been computed for the studied ventilating layouts. In Fig. 15 the time evolution of the mean age of air, evaluated in a point located close to the head of the person seated in the 6th row, is diagrammed for MAD, PAD and UFM system.”) (Petrone, Pg. 28, Right column: “This different behavior is better highlighted by Figs. 16−18, where the computed mean age of air, evaluated for t = 3600 seconds, is plotted in color-scaled maps overall the air volume for the investigated systems.”) (Petrone, Figs. 16-18) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 10, Petrone does not explicitly teach
groups second flow information about a first region and second flow information about a second region into a single piece of second flow information and outputs the single piece of second flow information, the first region being included in two or more regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value, the second region being included in the two or more regions and being different from the first region.
However, Hu teaches merging clusters of data based on the distance between the clusters (Pg. 470, Left column: “Use cluster analysis to divide the solutions into several large clusters according to Euclidean distance. In this paper, the hierarchical clustering is used, and when determining the clusters merged at successive steps, the centroid method is applied. … Expand or contract the range. If all larger clusters generated in step (3) prove to be continuous in step (4), the close two clusters are possible to be merged. Then go to step (4) to validate whether the merged cluster is continuous.”) (Pg. 469, Right column: “In a large cluster, if the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions is less than some certain threshold, the large cluster is thought to be continuous for the continuous flow field in a cabin. Therefore, we just need to ensure that the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions to be lower than a certain threshold.”) (Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this teaching from Hu into Petrone to create clusters of flow information based on regions; and merge the clusters, if necessary, based on the distance.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a cluster analysis allows one to easily distinguish data that are similar to each other and makes comparing and analyzing data easier (Hu, Pg. 468, Section 3.2: “Cluster analysis divides objects into groups (called clusters) according to their similarity (Kaufman and Rousseeuw 2009). The objects in the same cluster are more similar (in some sense or another) to each other compared to those in other clusters. In many cases, the similarity is quantified by a distance metric.”).
Therefore, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the generator groups second flow information about a first region and second flow information about a second region into a single piece of second flow information and outputs the single piece of second flow information, the first region being included in two or more regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value, the second region being included in the two or more regions and being different from the first region (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “Use cluster analysis to divide the solutions into several large clusters according to Euclidean distance. In this paper, the hierarchical clustering is used, and when determining the clusters merged at successive steps, the centroid method is applied. … Expand or contract the range. If all larger clusters generated in step (3) prove to be continuous in step (4), the close two clusters are possible to be merged. Then go to step (4) to validate whether the merged cluster is continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “In a large cluster, if the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions is less than some certain threshold, the large cluster is thought to be continuous for the continuous flow field in a cabin. Therefore, we just need to ensure that the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions to be lower than a certain threshold.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
Regarding claim 11, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the generator groups together the second flow information about the first region and the second flow information about the second region in accordance with a distance between the first region and the second region and a difference between the second flow information about the first region and the second flow information about the second region (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “Use cluster analysis to divide the solutions into several large clusters according to Euclidean distance. In this paper, the hierarchical clustering is used, and when determining the clusters merged at successive steps, the centroid method is applied. … Expand or contract the range. If all larger clusters generated in step (3) prove to be continuous in step (4), the close two clusters are possible to be merged. Then go to step (4) to validate whether the merged cluster is continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “In a large cluster, if the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions is less than some certain threshold, the large cluster is thought to be continuous for the continuous flow field in a cabin. Therefore, we just need to ensure that the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions to be lower than a certain threshold.”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 12, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the generator further determines whether or not a variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies a predetermined condition in a predetermined region within the predetermined space (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”), and
wherein if the generator determines that the variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies the predetermined condition, the generator outputs at least one of the first flow information or the second flow information (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Healey, [0097]: “Various aspects and functions in accordance with the present embodiments may be implemented as specialized hardware or software executing in one or more computer systems including computer system 162 shown in FIG. 16. As depicted, computer system 162 includes processor 170, memory 172, interconnection element 174, interface 176 and storage 178.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 13, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
information processing device according to claim 1 (See the analysis for claim 1); and
displays the first flow information and the second flow information output from the information processing device (Petrone, Figs. 3-5).
Petrone/Hu does not explicitly teach a display device.
However, Healey further discloses a display device ([0064]: “The data center designer or operator can view the airflow paths and the fractional quantities displayed via the interface”) ([0100]: “Examples of interface devices include keyboards, mouse devices, trackballs, microphones, touch screens, printing devices, display screens, speakers, network interface cards, etc. Interface devices allow computer system 162 to exchange information and communicate with external entities, such as users and other systems.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display device of Healey into Petrone/Hu to provide a display device for displaying the flow information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using such a display device allows a user to more conveniently view the analysis result by allowing a visual representation of data (Healey, [0064]: “The data center designer or operator can view the airflow paths and the fractional quantities displayed via the interface”) (Healey, [0079]: “The purpose of this rule, in one example, allows the computer system to visually display a conservation of mass for a user viewing the airflow paths in the interface 104.”).
Therefore, the combination of Petrone/Hu and Healey teaches
a display device that displays the first flow information and the second flow information output from the information processing device (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Healey, [0064]: “The data center designer or operator can view the airflow paths and the fractional quantities displayed via the interface”) (Healey, [0100]: “Examples of interface devices include keyboards, mouse devices, trackballs, microphones, touch screens, printing devices, display screens, speakers, network interface cards, etc. Interface devices allow computer system 162 to exchange information and communicate with external entities, such as users and other systems.”).
Regarding claim 14, Petrone/Hu/Healey teaches
wherein the display device displays the first flow information and the second flow information in different colors (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Healey, [0064]: “The data center designer or operator can view the airflow paths and the fractional quantities displayed via the interface”) (Healey, [0100]: “Examples of interface devices include keyboards, mouse devices, trackballs, microphones, touch screens, printing devices, display screens, speakers, network interface cards, etc. Interface devices allow computer system 162 to exchange information and communicate with external entities, such as users and other systems.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, Petrone/Healey teaches
acquiring a first flow-velocity distribution within a space including regions and a second flow-velocity distribution within the space (Petrone, Pg. 21, Abstract: “Momentum, energy and mass conservation equations are solved in order to highlight velocity fields, temperature distributions and carbon dioxide levels in each condition.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5),
the first flow-velocity distribution being calculated by using a first boundary condition, the second flow-velocity distribution being calculated by using a second boundary condition different from the first boundary condition (Petrone, Pg. 21, Abstract: “The paper deals with a numerical multi-physical investigation on performance assured by different ventilating systems in supplying air quality and comfort conditions in a movie theatre hall.”) (Petrone, Pg. 22: “the present paper deals with a numerical investigation on the performance of 3 different heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in terms of IAQ and thermal comfort in a small movie theatre hall.”) (Petrone, Pg. 24, Left column: “Equations (1) − (4) have been firstly solved in their steady form with boundary conditions reported in Table 2. Values of parameters appearing in Table 2 are specified in Table 3 for each ventilating system.”) (Petrone, Table 2 shows boundary conditions; Table 3 shows how different boundary conditions were used for each system.); and
outputting information indicating a first flow-velocity vector or information indicating a second flow-velocity vector in correspondence with information indicating a region included in the regions if a difference value between the first flow-velocity vector corresponding to the region and the second flow-velocity vector corresponding to the region is larger than or equal to a threshold value (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Hu, Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”) (Healey, [0009]: “In other examples, the controller is configured to generate the representation of the at least one airflow path for the sources having the airflow quantities exceeding a predetermined threshold.”),
wherein the first flow-velocity distribution includes the first flow-velocity vector (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5), and
wherein the second flow-velocity distribution includes the second flow-velocity vector (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Petrone, Figs. 3-5).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Copeland (US10151856B1)
Snider, SR. (US20170103151A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIN JEONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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 on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HEIN JEONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights