DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 9, 2016, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 were amended in the Amendment filed on November 17, 2025.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and under examination, of which claims 1, 7, and 8 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
In view of the claim amendments to independent claim 7, the means-plus-function interpretation is hereby withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-8 are maintained for the reasons presented herein below.
In view of the substantive amendments made to the claims, Applicant’s arguments presented over the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the non-statutory subject matter rejection for, at least, the following reasons. On page 6 of the Amendment, the following is argued:
Claim 1 recites additional limitations of: “predicting, by a processor executing a first model, a heat quantity needed in an air conditioning control region... ; predicting, by the processor executing a second model, a heat source demand of the entire space for the planning; and creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption.”
Applicant respectfully submits that the additional limitations, which describe specifics of execution by a processor, are not in abstract grouping. The additional limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activities because the operations of the respective predictions as performed by the processor executing the respective first and second models and further creating a planned operation scenario represent integral part of performing the heat source demand prediction. These additional limitations further describe a technical effect of planning the operation scenario to reduce power consumption. Accordingly, these additional limitations are more than merely applying a processor to an abstract idea. These additional limitations improve a technical field of heat source demand prediction. Accordingly, the additional limitations integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: Yes.)
The Office respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations of “a processor executing a first model”, “an air conditioning equipment”, “the processor executing a second model”, and “a heating source device” are tools that are used but are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components, such as a processor and an air conditioning equipment. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In addition, implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components, such as a processor executing a first model and a second model, an air conditioning equipment, and a heat source device, as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
Regarding the amended recitation “creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption”, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) Mere instructions to apply an exception - The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any 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”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. In this case, however, “creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption” is merely adding the word creating and presenting is not tying the judicial exceptions into a practical application, rather, the recitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem by applying it to a heat source device 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. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The amendment does not how the planned operation scenario adjusts, controls, or regulates the heating source device either in the air conditioning control region or for the entire space based on the predictions that are recited. The amended recitation does not 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, therefore, the non-statutory subject matter rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained.
For similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 7 and 8 are maintained.
The rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended to recite, in part, “predicting, by a processor executing a first model, a heat quantity needed in an air conditioning control region of a plurality of air conditioning control regions within a space by using a predetermined parameter of a surrounding environment of the air conditioning control region …, wherein the predetermined parameter describes a condition of the air conditioning control region…”. (Emphasis added) However, the limitation that the predetermined parameter “describes a condition of the air condition region” is confusing and contradictory as it was previously recited that the predetermined parameter is “of a surrounding environment”. If the predetermined parameter is of a surrounding environment, how can that same parameter be of the air conditioning control region? Based on the description provided in the Specification, it appears that the predetermined parameter is “affecting” the condition of the air conditioning control region (based on the surrounding environment). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the amended recitation will be construed as “wherein the predetermined parameter affects a condition of the air conditioning control region…” Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
Similar amendments is respectfully recommended for independent claims 7 and 8.
In addition, independent claims 1, 7, and 8, were amended to recite “…a heat source demand of the entire space for the planning…” However, “the planning” was not previously recited in the claim, thereby rendering the limitation confusing. For purposes of examination, the recitation will be construed as “…a heat source demand of the entire space for [[the]] a planning…” Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
In view of their dependencies to a rejected base claim, claims 2-6 are also rejected.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... predicting,…, a heat quantity needed in an air conditioning control region of a plurality of air conditioning control regions within a space by using a predetermined parameter of a surrounding environment of the air conditioning control region and a setting value … in the air conditioning control region as inputs, wherein the predetermined parameter describes a condition of the air conditioning control region; and predicting, by the processor executing a second model, a heat source demand of the entire space for the planning, at least in part from the predicted heat quantity needed in the air conditioning control region of the plurality of air conditioning control regions...”
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, 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, such as paragraphs [0019], [0031], [0044], [0093], and [0103]-[0105], for instance, the predicting limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “a processor executing a first model… an air conditioning equipment,… the processor executing a second model,…; and creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption”.
The features including “a processor executing a first model… an air conditioning equipment,… the processor executing a second model,…a heating source device …”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used 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. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Regarding the amended recitation “creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption”, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) are mere instructions to apply an exception. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any 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”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Merely adding the words creating and presenting is not tying the judicial exceptions into a practical application, rather, the recitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem by applying it to a heat source device 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. see MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims do not how the planned operation scenario adjusts, controls, or regulates the heating source device either in the air conditioning control region or for the entire space based on the predictions that are recited. The amended recitation does not integrate the abstract ideas of independent claim 1 (i.e., “predicting…”) into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “a processor executing a first model… an air conditioning equipment,… the processor executing a second model,…a heating source device…”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations 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 component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”) Regarding the amended recitation “creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption”, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) are mere instructions to apply an exception and does not amount to significantly more. The creating and presenting is not applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017).
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-6 are not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 7, as amended, this claim recites, “... predicting,…, a heat quantity needed in an air conditioning control region of a plurality of air conditioning control regions within a space by using a predetermined parameter of a surrounding environment of the air conditioning control region and a setting value … in the air conditioning control region as inputs, wherein the predetermined parameter describes a condition of the air conditioning control region; and predicting, by the processor executing a second model, a heat source demand of the entire space for the planning, at least in part from the predicted heat quantity needed in the air conditioning control region of the plurality of air conditioning control regions...”
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, 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, such as paragraphs [0019], [0031], [0044], [0093], and [0103]-[0105], for instance, the predicting limitations are mental processes 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 7 recites the additional elements of, “a prediction device”, “a memory”, and “a processor executing a computer-executable instructions…the processor executing a first model… an air conditioning equipment,… the processor executing a second model,…a heating source device …”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used 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. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Regarding the amended recitation “creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption”, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) are mere instructions to apply an exception. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any 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”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Merely adding the words creating and presenting is not tying the judicial exceptions into a practical application, rather, the recitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem by applying it to a heat source device 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. see MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims do not how the planned operation scenario adjusts, controls, or regulates the heating source device either in the air conditioning control region or for the entire space based on the predictions that are recited. The amended recitation does not integrate the abstract ideas of independent claim 7 (i.e., “predicting…”) into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “a prediction device”, “a memory”, and “a processor executing a computer-executable instructions…the processor executing a first model… an air conditioning equipment,… the processor executing a second model,…a heating source device …”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim 7, 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 component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”) Regarding the amended recitation “creating and presenting a planned operation scenario of a heat source device so as to reduce power consumption”, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) are mere instructions to apply an exception and does not amount to significantly more. The creating and presenting is not applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017).
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
The functions of independent claim 8 are implemented by similar functions as those of the prediction method of claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 1 above also applies to claim 8. Independent claim 8 is not deemed patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Pending the non-statutory subject matter rejection under 35 USC 101 and the indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b), in view of the substantive claim amendments, the subject matter of claims 1-8 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
While the prior art a prediction method to regulate indoor air conditions (see Thind (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0235004 A1); Ogawa et al. (WO 2016121107 A1); Ryu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0209840 A1); Utsumi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0303783 A1); Lee et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0203968 A1); Dong, B. and Lam, K.P., 2014, February. A real-time model predictive control for building heating and cooling systems based on the occupancy behavior pattern detection and local weather forecasting. In Building Simulation (Vol. 7, pp. 89-106). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.; US Patent Publication No. 2021/0190355 A1 to Tokudi et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2014/0365017 A1 to Hanna et al.; and WO 2021/181566 A1 to Nakamura) the prior art does not teach, individually or combined, “… the predetermined parameter describes [construed as “affecting”] a condition of the air conditioning control region; and predicting, by the processor executing a second model, a heat source demand of the entire space for the planning, at least in part from the predicted heat quantity needed in the air conditioning control region of the plurality of air conditioning control regions”. It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
The recitations of independent claims 7 and 8 recite functions implemented by the prediction method of independent claim 1, with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, independent claims 7 and 8 are allowable for similar reasons as independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2021/0190355 A1 to Tokudi et al. describes a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning (HVAC) equipment that operates to control a temperature of the building space by adding heat to the building space or removing heat from the building space, according to some embodiments. The system includes lighting equipment that operates to control a luminosity of the building space and affects a heat load disturbance for the building space, according to some embodiments. The system includes an environmental controller including a processing circuit, according to some embodiments. The processing circuit is configured to predict the heat load disturbance based on one or more potential operating states of the lighting equipment over a time period, according to some embodiments. The heat load disturbance affects the temperature of the building space, according to some embodiments. The processing circuit is configured to generate control decisions for the HVAC equipment and the lighting equipment based on the predicted heat load disturbance and subject to constraints on the temperature of the building space and the luminosity of the building space over the time period, according to some embodiments.
US Patent Publication No. 2014/0365017 A1 to Hanna et al. describes a processor configured to store at least one user preference, acquire indoor environmental conditions from sensor data, acquire an occupancy level, acquire outdoor environmental conditions, predict future building conditions based on the indoor environmental conditions, the occupancy level, the at least one user preference, and the outdoor environmental conditions, select at least one control output based on the future building conditions, transmit a control signal based on the at least one control output to at least one of heating equipment, cooling equipment, and ventilation equipment.
WO 2021/181566 A1 to Nakamura describes a demand controller (3) for outputting a demand signal when an electrical power demand value exceeds a set value. The air-conditioning system (1) is provided with: an air conditioner (12); an inference device (16) for inferring data representing the total amount of the electrical power demand value exceeding a set value for a period subject to prediction, from input data including at least one of operation data for the air conditioner (12) for a period before the period subject to prediction, state data for a user of the air conditioner (12) for a period before the period subject to prediction, weather prediction data for the period subject to prediction, and characteristics data for a room in which the air conditioner (12) is installed; and a control device (15) for causing the air conditioner (12) to perform a heat storage operation, depending on the predicted value for the total amount of the electrical power demand value. The control device (15) operates the air conditioner (12) using heat stored in the heat storage operation, in response to a demand signal from the demand controller (3).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:30 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights