DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 10/4/2022.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20170211830 A1 by KOSAKA; Tadayoshi et al.
This action is made Non-Final.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Relevant Prior Art of Record
US PGPUB No. US US 20190316802 A1 by Alanqar; Anas W. I. et al. discloses boundary condition based temperature prediction ([0052]-[0060], [0165]) based on the system parameters (weights – [0060]). Error prediction [0073]-[0080] at least.
US PGPUB No. US 20200240668 A1 by BASSA; Nir et al. discloses multi goal (boundary condition goals – See Fig.4) which takes input of actual data (Fig.1 elements 107/150/110) including occupancy ([0054][0112]) and temperature ([0007][0112]).
Above prior art and additional ones cited on PTO892 may be used in future rejections.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 7 & 8:
Step 1: the claims are drawn to a method, system and a non-transitory recording medium, respectively, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention. The claim 1 is mapped exemplarily, however similar analysis is applied to claims 7 & 8 under this statute.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial exception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1. (Currently Amended) An estimation method for estimating a boundary condition used in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space, the estimation method in which a processor executes processing, the processing comprising the steps executed by a computer of:
setting the boundary condition based on an actual measured value of observation data related to the target space and a parameter including a weight to the actual measured value of the observation data;
calculating a predicted value of the observation data by executing a simulation inside the target space based on the boundary condition set;
calculating an error between the predicted value of the observation data calculated through the simulation and the actual measured value of the observation data; and
estimating the parameter so as to reduce the error, and estimating the boundary condition based on the parameter estimated.
See Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B for use of computer/processor:
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The setting recites mental process (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) because based on the observation (actual measured value of the observation data), a opinion/judgement is formed on the weights and boundary condition to be set. The setting limitation may also recites mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) because they involve mathematical equation to set the boundary condition(s) (See specification [0127]).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The calculating a predicted value of the observation data limitation recites mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) because they involve mathematical equation(s) to compute the predicted value to observation data based pm the set the boundary condition(s) (See specification [0127]). This may be abstract idea based because it can be performed with pencil and paper to calculate (opinion/judgement) the predicted value of the observation data based on boundary conditions related to observation data (observation & decision from previous step).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The calculating an error limitation recites mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) because they involve mathematical equation(s) to compute the error. See Specification [0145] using conventional mathematical error computation techniques (MSE, RSME, MAE etc.).
See Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these 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. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. like claimed processor in preamble). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)(C). Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or computer as a tool.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
1. (Currently Amended) An estimation method for estimating a boundary condition used in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space,
the estimation method in which a processor executes processing, the processing comprising the steps executed by a computer of:
setting the boundary condition based on an actual measured value of observation data related to the target space and a parameter including a weight to the actual measured value of the observation data;
calculating a predicted value of the observation data by executing a simulation inside the target space based on the boundary condition set;
calculating an error between the predicted value of the observation data calculated through the simulation and the actual measured value of the observation data; and
estimating the parameter so as to reduce the error, and estimating the boundary condition based on the parameter estimated.
Under MPEP 2106.05(h), the use of estimating a boundary condition (an abstract concept as seen in specification [0127]), in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space is merely a field of use in a simulation. The claim is not even directed to actual application (e.g. control or improvement in the temperature of actual target space) or improvement in the simulation specifically (as will be evident from the last limitation/step).
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case the this is mere data gathering of the observation data. It is not clear whether the weights are gathered somehow or assigned.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem (estimating the parameter (including a weight) & estimating the boundary condition) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further under MPEP 2106.05(h) the claim does at best have fleeting association with a practical application (estimating a boundary condition used in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space). The estimation of weights (or updated value thereof) is akin to computation of updated alarm limit in In re Flook1.
In particular, the claim(s) recites the additional elements of a processor at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic processor performing generic functions of computing and executing information such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The observation and (possibly initial parameter/weights) amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer/processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) related to data gathering as above. Further, the preamble reciting estimating a boundary condition used in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea(See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claims 1 and similarly Claims 7 & 8 are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Claims 2 recite "... wherein the observation data includes:the temperature inside the target space; an outside air temperature in an area within a predetermined range outside the target space; operating information indicating an operating state of air conditioning inside the target space; and people flow data indicating the number of people present inside the target space. ..." and is considered further defining extra solution activity of what data is gathered and generally an attempt to link the field of use. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (performing simulation of based on observation for inside temperature) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. MPEP 2106.05(g) & (h). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 3 recite "... wherein the setting of the boundary condition, the calculation of the error, and the update of the parameter are repeated in estimating the boundary condition.. ..." and is considered as further contributing to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) and 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 4 recite "... wherein the setting of the boundary condition, the calculation of the error, and the update of the parameter are repeated in estimating the boundary condition acquiring initial data related to a target space and being for executing a simulation of a temperature inside the target space; setting a boundary condition used in the simulation of the temperature inside the target space based on the initial data acquired and the parameter obtained by the estimation method according to claims 1; and predicting the temperature in the target space by executing the simulation inside the target space based on the boundary condition set... ..." and is considered as further contributing to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) and 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). These are all mathematical concepts/mental steps which can be performed with computer as a tool.
Predicting the temperature, does not improve on any specific technology. E.g. the prediction does not lead to better control of the HVAC system algorithm or some other practical application. This is akin to providing an updated alarm limit in In re Flook. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 5 recite "... wherein the initial data includes: the temperature inside the target space; an outside air temperature in an area within a predetermined range outside the target space; operating information indicating an operating state of air conditioning inside the target space; and people flow data indicating the number of people present inside the target space.. ..." and is considered further defining extra solution activity of what data is gathered/used and generally an attempt to link the field of use. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (performing simulation of based on observation for inside temperature) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. MPEP 2106.05(g) & (h). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claims 4 & 12 recite further executing the algorithm for another time step, and add merely to abstract idea as claimed in claim 1 & 10 respectively. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical element.
Claims 5-9 & 13-17 further add various mathematical calculations pertaining to the algorithm and add merely to abstract idea as claimed in claim 1 & 10 respectively. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
----- This page is left blank after this line -----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20170211830 A1 by KOSAKA; Tadayoshi et al.
Regarding Claim 1, 7 & 8
Kosaka teaches (Claim 1) An estimation method for estimating a boundary condition used in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space (Kosaka: [0145] the boundary condition specified in Formula 1 and Formula 2; Fig.9-10, Fig.14) , the estimation method in which a processor executes processing (Kosaka: Fig.2 & [0054]) , the processing comprising the steps executed by a computer of:
(Claim 7) An estimation device configured to estimate a boundary condition used in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space (Kosaka: [0145] the boundary condition specified in Formula 1 and Formula 2), the estimation device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Kosaka: Fig.2 & [0054]), the at least one processor being configured to:
(Claim 8) A non-transitory recording medium (Kosaka : [0055]) storing an estimation program for estimating a boundary condition used in a simulation of a temperature inside a target space (Kosaka: [0145] the boundary condition specified in Formula 1 and Formula 2; Fig.9-10, Fig.14), the estimation program being for causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
setting the boundary condition based on an actual measured value of observation data related to the target space (Kosaka : [0136]-[0138] – actual observation data; Fig.14 & [0141]-[0197] – put into boundary condition) and a parameter including a weight to the actual measured value of the observation data (Kosaka: [0104]-[0109], Fig.9-10, w.r.t to Embodiment 1 & Fig.14 - [0145] with showing weight a0-a8 and b0-b8 applied to actual values measured "[0142]... outside temperature OT[0], the sunlight level SR[0], the OA equipment power usage OA[0], the ventilation power usage AE[0], the frame temperature KT[0], the air-conditioning control plan AS[0,0], the room temperature RT[0], and the air-conditioning power usage AP[0] into the room temperature calculation procedure 55....") ;
calculating a predicted value of the observation data by executing a simulation inside the target space based on the boundary condition set (Kosaka: Fig.9-10 shows the Frame temperature approximation as graph for the process described in Fig.14 which predicts the observation data like room temperature and air conditioner power usage – [0098]-[0119]) ;
calculating an error between the predicted value of the observation data calculated through the simulation and the actual measured value of the observation data (Kosaka: [0159] "... [0159] After Step S204, the air-conditioning planner 45 performs multiple regression based on the actual data of the outside temperature, the sunlight level, the OA equipment power usage, the ventilation power usage, the air-conditioning control plan, the room temperature RT, and the air-conditioning power usage AP, and the frame temperature based on the temporal change K(t) predicted in Step S204. This way, the air-conditioning planner 45 obtains the calculation parameters ax and bx (x=0 to 8) for the room temperature calculation function and the air-conditioning power usage calculation function (S206)...." the difference in actual data and predicted data K(t) is used to obtain weights ax (i.e. a0-a8) and bx (i.e. b0-b8) through regression) ; and
estimating the parameter so as to reduce the error (Kosaka: [0159]-[0165] – estimating weights ax (i.e. a0-a8) and bx (i.e. b0-b8) through regression) , and estimating the boundary condition based on the parameter estimated (Kosaka:; [0145]-[0154] showing calculation for boundary condition, which use the parameters a0-a8 Boundary condition in Formula 1 & b0-b8 Boundary condition in Formula 2; Alternately also see Fig.22 & [0254]) .
Regarding Claim 2
Kosaka teaches the estimation method according to claim 1, wherein the observation data includes: the temperature inside the target space (Kosaka: "[0142]... outside temperature OT[0], the sunlight level SR[0], the OA equipment power usage OA[0], the ventilation power usage AE[0], the frame temperature KT[0], the air-conditioning control plan AS[0,0], the room temperature RT[0], and the air-conditioning power usage AP[0] into the room temperature calculation procedure 55....") ; an outside air temperature in an area within a predetermined range outside the target space (Kosaka: [0142] "... outside temperature OT[0],...") ; operating information indicating an operating state of air conditioning inside the target space (Kosaka: [0142] "... the OA equipment power usage OA[0], the ventilation power usage AE[0],...") ; and people flow data indicating the number of people present inside the target space (Kosaka: [0092] "... [0092] The power usage of the OA equipment varies depending on, for example, the number of people in the building 30, the day of the week, and events scheduled on that day....") .
Regarding Claim 3
Kosaka teaches the estimation method according to claim 1 , wherein the setting of the boundary condition, the calculation of the error, and the update of the parameter are repeated in estimating the boundary condition (Kosaka: [0167] "... [0167] By repeating Steps S108 and S109, the air-conditioning planner 45 can calculate the room temperature RT [boundary condition as in ¶[0145]]and the air-conditioning power usage AP [boundary condition as in ¶[0145]] in a time series including a plurality of times T[i] when one of the air-conditioning control plan options is executed...." – showing repeated calculation for boundary conditions ; error in [0159]-[0167], and update to parameters a0-a8/b0-b8 as ax/bx is also regression based).
Regarding Claim 4
Kosaka teaches A simulation method in which a processor executes processing (Kosaka: Fig.2 & [0054], simulation as prediction of temperature based on past actual data [0136]-[0197]), the processing comprising the steps of: acquiring initial data related to a target space and being for executing a simulation of a temperature inside the target space (Kosaka : [0136]-[0138] – actual observation data); setting a boundary condition used in the simulation of the temperature inside the target space based on the initial data acquired and the parameter obtained by the estimation method according to any one of claims 1 (Kosaka: [0139]-[0154]) ; and predicting the temperature in the target space by executing the simulation inside the target space based on the boundary condition set (Kosaka: [0145] shows computing Room Temperature calculation RT[i] at time I based on the boundary condition (in Formula 1) using input variables) .
Regarding Claim 5
Kosaka teaches the simulation method according to claim 4, wherein the initial data includes: the temperature inside the target space (Kosaka: "[0142]... outside temperature OT[0], the sunlight level SR[0], the OA equipment power usage OA[0], the ventilation power usage AE[0], the frame temperature KT[0], the air-conditioning control plan AS[0,0], the room temperature RT[0], and the air-conditioning power usage AP[0] into the room temperature calculation procedure 55...."); an outside air temperature in an area within a predetermined range outside the target space (Kosaka: [0142] "... outside temperature OT[0],..."); operating information indicating an operating state of air conditioning inside the target space (Kosaka: [0142] "... the OA equipment power usage OA[0], the ventilation power usage AE[0],..."); and people flow data indicating the number of people present inside the target space (Kosaka: [0092] "... [0092] The power usage of the OA equipment varies depending on, for example, the number of people in the building 30, the day of the week, and events scheduled on that day....").
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Thursday, January 8, 2026
1 In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons."