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 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 17-20, 22-23, 25, 28 and 30 are pending.
Claims 8, 11, 14-16, 21, 24, 26-27, 29 and 31-50 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claim 17 have overcome 112(b) rejections previously set forth. The 112(b) rejections of the claims 17-20, 22-23, 25, 28 and 30 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with regards to 101 rejections of the claims (see Amendment, Pages 8-12), are directed to that the pending claims are integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception.
More specifically, Applicant argues that, in claim 1, “[u]sing a temporary sensor to train an artificial intelligence to learn patterns in environmental characteristics at locations without a permanent sensor sensitive to that characteristic is a novel approach to computerized support of enclosure (e.g., building) management. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the presently pending claims recite a specific, practical application for improving the use of sensor information. The specifically recited feature provides more than the abstract idea, and thus it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application consistent with MPEP §2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations) and provides a service similar to the filtering discussed by the Federal Circuit in BASCOM: …” (see Amendment, Page 9), and “[t]hus learning to predict at locations beyond those covered by sensors, while clearly involving the judicial exception of mental processes, does not simply recite the judicial exception. Therefore, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, and MPEP 2106.05(a), these claims "reflect an improvement to [a] technical field" and thus integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” (see Amendment, Page 10)
Examiner respectfully submits that BASCOM claim 1 recites in part “… said ISP server associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements, said ISP server further receiving said network access requests from said client computer and executing said associated filtering scheme utilizing said associated set of logical filtering elements.” In BASCOM, the judicial exception (“associating”) that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem (“content filtering”) with restriction on how the result is accomplished (“executing said associated filtering scheme …”) and with description of the mechanism (executing on the “ISP server”) for accomplishing the result, integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. However, regarding the claim 1 of the instant application, the judicial exception (“predicting and comparing”) that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem (making “environmental adjustment”) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished (“using … the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics” (how is the environmental characteristics controlled?)) and no description of the mechanism (no such element or mechanism to be controlled is recited in the claim) for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that “using a temporary sensor to train an artificial intelligence to learn patterns in environmental characteristics” does not suggest applying of the comparison of the reading produced by the test sensor to the predicted environmental characteristics, identified as abstract idea, into using the temporary sensor. (emphasis added) In other words, the temporary sensor is used to carry out the abstract idea of comparing, and not the other way around. More specifically, the limitation “placing at the test location a test sensor sensitive to the selected environmental characteristic”, as recited in the claim that is configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitation may be a tool that is used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that it represent no more than mere instructions of using a generic electronic or computer components or modules to carry out the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the argument is not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the presently pending independent claims are similar to Claim 3 of Example 47 found to be patent-eligible in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (hereinafter cited as "Examples"). That claim trains an AI to detect "malicious network packets," but then the claim goes on to "provide specific computer solutions that use the output from the [Artificial Neural Network] to provide security solutions to the detected anomalies" (Examples, page 11). While the analysis finds that Claim 3 recites a judicial exception, because the claim includes elements that respond to the malicious network packets: the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES), such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible. (Examples, page 13),” and that “[t]his analysis applies directly to the presently pending claims 1 and 17 where the final element "using, by the artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure" integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully submits that, in the Example 47 claim 3, the judicial exception (“detecting” and “determining”) that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem (“network security”) with restriction on how the result is accomplished (“dropping the one or more malicious network packets” and “blocking future traffic from the source address”) and with description of the mechanism (“computer”) for accomplishing the result, integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. However, regarding the claim 1 of the instant application, the judicial exception (“predicting and comparing”) that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem (making “environmental adjustment”) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished (“using … the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics” (how is the environmental characteristics controlled?)) and no description of the mechanism (no such element or mechanism to be controlled is recited in the claim) for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the final element “using, by the artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure" does not integrate “the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” (emphasis added) The limitations “using the virtual enclosure model to generate a map of one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure; learning, by an artificial intelligence engine, from data from the one or more sensors” are used to carry out “using, by the artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure,” as recited in the claim. (emphasis added) It is not the abstract idea of predicting and comparing that is used “to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure”. If by “using, by the artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure,” Applicant means “using, by the adjusted artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure,” Examiner recommends amending the claim as such. (emphasis added) However, even if such amendment is made, “using, by the [adjusted] artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. When so evaluated, and as discussed above, the additional limitation of “using, by the [adjusted] artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure” would be merely adding the words “using … to control” with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem 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”, and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and therefore is not indicative of integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the argument is not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the recent Desjardins decision (for patent application 16/319,040) issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on September 26, 2025, states: Under a charitable view, the overbroad reasoning of the original panel below is perhaps understandable given the confusing nature of existing §101 jurisprudence, but troubling, because this case highlights what is at stake. Categorically excluding Al innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology. Yet, under the panel's reasoning, many AI innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and nonobvious-because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable "algorithm" and the remaining additional elements as "generic computer components," without adequate explanation. Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality.” Applicant further argues “[l]ike the invention claimed in McRO, the presently pending claims provide "a particular way to achieve a desired outcome," here, of enhancing the use of information extracted from a suite of sensors. Because this feature goes beyond the known art, it provides "significantly more" than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field: It adds unconventional steps that confine claims 1 and 17 to a particular useful application.” (see Amendment, Pages 11-12)
Examiner respectfully submits that there are no elements to suggest that the recited claim is an artificial intelligence innovation. The recited claim uses the artificial intelligence in a way that it is a generic “artificial intelligence.” In other words, there are no improvements to the artificial intelligence engine to show that it is not a generic artificial intelligence engine. If the Applicant’s claimed invention is about an AI innovation, Applicant is encouraged to recite elements to support what the AI innovation comprises.
Further, the using the test location data by the test sensor is part of the identified abstract idea. The analysis to determine if the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, are performed on additional limitations of the claim, and not on the abstract idea limitations.
Accordingly, the argument is not deemed persuasive.
For the foregoing reasons, the 101 rejections of the claims are maintained.
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 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 17-20, 22-23, 25, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
(Step 2A, Prong One) Independent claim 1 recites, “... learning by an artificial intelligence engine, from data from the one or more sensors; predicting, by the artificial intelligence engine, a selected one of the environmental characteristics at a test location within the physical enclosure, wherein the test location is devoid of a sensor sensitive to the selected environmental characteristic; comparing a reading produced by the test sensor to the predicted environmental characteristic at the test location ...”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components or modules, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, in at least paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0120] and [0129], the learning and predicting functions may be mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement, but for the recitation of the generic artificial intelligence engine, and the comparing function may be a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional limitations of, “generating a virtual enclosure model for a physical enclosure using a virtual representation of the physical enclosure, a virtual grid of vertex points, and one or more material properties of the physical enclosure, wherein the physical enclosure includes one or more sensors; using the virtual enclosure model to generate a map of one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure; placing at the test location a test sensor sensitive to the selected environmental characteristic; adjusting coefficients of the artificial intelligence engine to bring its prediction closer to the test sensor’s reading; and using the virtual enclosure model to generate a map of one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure.”
The additional limitation “a virtual enclosure model”, “a map”, “one or more sensors”, “an artificial intelligence”, “placing at the test location a test sensor …”, and “adjusting coefficients of the artificial intelligence engine” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for predicting and comparing as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components or modules. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components or modules as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
The additional limitation of “generating a virtual enclosure model …” and “using the virtual enclosure model to generate a map of one or more environmental characteristics …” are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and data output. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
The claim recites the additional limitations of “using, by the artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure.” The practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. When so evaluated, the additional limitation of “using, by the artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure” is merely adding the words using to control with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem 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", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and therefore is not indicative of integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “a virtual enclosure model”, “a map”, “one or more sensors”, “an artificial intelligence”, “placing at the test location a test sensor …”, and “adjusting coefficients of the artificial intelligence engine”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitation may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer components or modules. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components or modules as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
Both, generating a virtual enclosure model function and using the virtual enclosure model to generate a map function represent functions that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, as demonstrated in Tiwari et al. (US 2016/0285416 A1) paragraph [0007] (“A method of evaluating energy harvesting potential includes receiving point-in-time illuminance data into a mobile device for incorporation into a building information model of a building. A site-specific light simulation model for the building is calibrated using the building information model incorporating the point-in-time illuminance data. The method also includes determining energy availability for energy harvesting in the building based on the calibrated site-specific light simulation model.”), Makem et al. (US 2017/0061037 A1) Abstract (“A system and method is provided that facilitates generating meshes for object models of structures for use with finite element analysis simulations carried out on the structure. The system may include at least one processor configured to classify a type of an input face of a three dimensional (3D) object model of a structure based at least in part on a number of loops included by the input face. The processor may also select based on the classified type of the input face a multi-block decomposition algorithm from among a plurality of multi-block decomposition algorithms that the processor is configured to use. Further the processor may use the selected multi-block decomposition algorithm to determine locations of a plurality of blocks across the input face. In addition the processor may mesh each block to produce mesh data defining a mesh that divides the input face into a plurality of quadrilateral elements.”), and Ashdown et al. (US 2019/0215932 A1) paragraph [0004] (“A method performed by a daylight harvesting lighting modelling system of transferring element attributes of a plurality of exterior environment elements through a transition surface with diffusion properties to their corresponding interior elements, the method comprising: assigning diffusion characteristics of the transition surface based on the diffusion properties of the transition surface material; assigning a unique identifier to each element in the virtual representation of the exterior and interior environments; selecting a first set of directions in the half-space defined by the transition surface, the diffusion characteristics of the transition surface, and the exterior environment; selecting a second set of directions in the half-space defined by the transition surface, the diffusion characteristics of the transition surface, and the interior environment; choosing a position on the transition surface for each exterior direction; selecting a first direction from the first set of directions; tracing a ray from the position on the transition surface in the first direction to the closest exterior environment element; assigning the exterior environment element identifier to the ray; selecting a second direction from the second set of directions; tracing a ray from the position on the transition surface in the second direction to the closest interior environment element; assigning the exterior environment element identifier as an attribute to the interior environment element; and indirectly determining an element attribute transferred from an exterior environment element to a corresponding interior environment element by way of the unique identifier of the exterior environment element.”)
The additional limitation of “using, by the artificial intelligence engine, the map to control the one or more environmental characteristics of the physical enclosure” is merely adding the words using to control (or “to apply”) with the judicial exception, and does not impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is not patent eligible for similar reasons as for the claim 1, as discussed above.
The recitations of claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 18-20, 22-23, 25, 28 and 30 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 17.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116