DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 09/02/2025 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claim 1 remain pending and is presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “The newly filed claim1 recites the additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application…The newly filed claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are clearly directed to an abstract idea “mathematical concept” as evidenced by the claims/specification and that the specification makes clear each of the formulations used to perform mathematical calculation set forth in the claims, as the claims fails to recite anything that goes beyond the recited judicial exception. The added limitation could merely amount to post-solution “apply it”; to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, Therefore, the claims are clearly abstract, as currently constructed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a natural gas circuit modeling method for operation control of an integrated energy system, comprising: The step of: “natural gas circuit modeling method for operation control of an integrated energy system, comprising: step 1 of establishing a pipeline model of a natural gas circuit, comprising: step 1-1 of establishing a mass conservation equation and a momentum conservation equation for a one-dimensional flow process of the natural gas in the pipeline:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
630
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Likewise, the steps of:
PNG
media_image3.png
212
916
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
526
926
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, under the broadest reasonable interpretation further fall under a mathematical concept. The further steps of:
PNG
media_image5.png
716
784
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
126
530
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, under the broadest reasonable interpretation further fall under a mathematical concept.
In the like manner, the step of:
PNG
media_image7.png
670
716
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
230
428
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
86
436
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps further fall under a mathematical concept.
The further steps of: step 1-10 of establishing, based on the linear two-port network equation in the step 1-9, a π_type equivalent gas circuit, and equivalent parameters are:
PNG
media_image10.png
594
474
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
752
576
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
612
752
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
594
894
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, under the broadest reasonable interpretation further fall under a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claims are clearly directed to an abstract idea, performing mathematical computations and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component previously known in the industries and the step of: “operating a natural gas energy network in the integrated energy system based on the unknown node pressure and the unknown branch flow” could clear amount to post-solution activities and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; it is further noted that
to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965. and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and therefore do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; thus, the claim are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component previously known in the industries and the step of: “operating a natural gas energy network in the integrated energy system based on the unknown node pressure and the unknown branch flow” could clear amount to post-solution activities and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; it is further noted that
to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965. and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and therefore do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; thus, the claim are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites:
"A natural gas circuit modeling method (preamble)" and "a natural gas circuit" (step 1), then recites "the natural gas" (step 1-1). It is not clear if "the natural gas" in (step 1-1) is referencing the natural gas circuit (step 1) or natural gas modeling method in (preamble), or applicant intended to recite "a natural gas".
Further in the claim, "a pipeline model" (step 1), then recites "the pipeline" (step 1-1 lines 5-6, 11, and in (step 1-2). It is not clear if "the pipeline" is referencing the pipeline model or applicant intended to recite "a pipeline".
Further "the natural gas pipeline" (step 1-3, step 1-4). It is not clear if it is referencing "the pipeline" or something different.
Appropriate correction and/or further clarification requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
7.1 Ye et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0309516) teaches an integrated small and medium-sized natural gas steam reforming reactor comprising a furnace body, a combustion module located outside the furnace body, and a conversion reaction module.
9. Claim 1 is rejected and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 November 25, 2025