Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/865,431

NATURAL GAS CIRCUIT MODELING METHOD FOR OPERATION CONTROL OF INTEGRATED ENERGY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Jul 15, 2022
Priority
Jan 16, 2020 — CN 202010045108.8 +1 more
Examiner
PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE
Art Unit
2187
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Tsinghua University
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
439 granted / 648 resolved
+12.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
682
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§103
60.0%
+20.0% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 648 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 15, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 01, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §101
Jan 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639189
SELECTING AUTOMATION SCRIPTS USING REINFORCED LEARNING
5y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12605207
SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING AN AUGMENTED REALITY AND METHOD FOR GENERATING AN AUGMENTED REALITY
4y 9m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12602523
RACK-BASED DESIGN VERIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT
3y 10m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12561218
Automatic Functional Test Pattern Generation based on DUT Reference Model and Unique Scripts
3y 10m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12546217
Machine-Learning based Rig-Site On-Demand Drilling Mud Characterization, Property Prediction, and Optimization
4y 1m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+14.3%)
3y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 648 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month