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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments regarding the claim eligibility have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-4 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image1.png
498
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Office determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that instant claims 1-6 and 9-20 are directed to an abstract idea of estimating carbon emission of a district heating system based on counting a combination of the steady carbon emission amount of a current district heating system and a dynamic carbon emission amount of the current district heating system, but without reciting any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. It appears the “improvement” is solely attributed to the claimed algorithm of counting/calculating the combination of the steady/dynamic carbon emission amounts. The claims do not recite any additional limitation that would amount to be significantly more and convert the claimed invention to reflect an improvement such as in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to carbon emission monitoring technology, etc. (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by Examiner’s analyses of the claims under the 2019 PEG as set forth below in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are directed to an abstract idea of estimating carbon emission of a district heating system.
Specifically, representative claim 9 recites:
An electronic device, comprising:
a memory;
a processor; and
a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements:
(S1) obtaining a steady carbon emission amount of a current district heating system using a pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model, wherein the pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model is constructed based on a pipeline carbon flow rate, network loss carbon emission, a nodal carbon flow density, a pipeline carbon flow density, a heat source carbon flow rate, and a heat load carbon flow rate of the current district heating system;
(S2) obtaining a dynamic carbon emission amount of the current district heating system using a pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model, wherein the pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model is constructed based on water element carbon flow rates at a plurality of time periods, actual outlet carbon flow rates of a pipeline at the plurality of time periods, network loss carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, and nodal carbon flow densities at the plurality of time periods of the current district heating system; and
(S3) counting a carbon emission amount of the current district heating system based on the steady carbon emission amount and the dynamic carbon emission amount; and
(S4) displaying the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system on a user-side carbon meter for viewing of a user, and receiving an operation performed by the user, on the user-side carbon meter, according to the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system and a carbon reduction requirement.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each and/or the combination of the limitations S1, S2 and S3 recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts and/or calculations, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
In particular, the recited steps of “obtaining … using a pre-trained … model” are analogous to "generating a prediction using a machine learning model". The claim focuses solely on the concept of making predictions using a generic machine learning algorithm but does not provide any details about how the pre-trained model itself operates to generate the outputs that goes beyond the basic idea of using a computer to analyze data and generate predictions. As such, in view of the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Examples 47-49), “obtaining … using a pre-trained … model”, i.e. "generating a prediction using a machine learning model", is considered an abstract idea.
As to the recited physical parameters/variables used for training the steady carbon emission flow model and the dynamic carbon emission flow model, under the BRI, they encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations S1/S2/S3 from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 9, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Representative claim 9 recites “a memory; a processor; and
a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, the combination of the processor and the memory reads on a general-purpose computer performing a generic computer function of processing data. The generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the general-purpose computer. It is held that performing an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer system would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See, for example, Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under its BRI, each of the limitation S1 and S2 encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. The claim does not require any particular devices or sensors to receive the information.
Thus, the limitations S1 and S2 do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Under its BRI, the limitation S4 reads on an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. Such a post solution activity encompasses merely displaying the results of the identified judicial exception and instructions to apply the judicial exception for an intended use or to link the use of the abstract idea to the relevant technological environment as an ancillary part of the data collection and analysis, but does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the claimed electronic device itself and/or network communications between the electronic device and any other related equipment, etc. As such, it does not amount to be significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 585-86, 596-97 (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was an insignificant “post-solution activity”). See also Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims to generating tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event recited an abstract idea and its implementation on a generic computer without any meaningful limitations to the concept did not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
None of these additional elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other 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.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is deemed that the “heart” of the representative claim 9 is directed to an algorithm of mathematically estimating a (deviation of) carbon emission amount of the current district heating system based on steady carbon emission amount and dynamic carbon emission amount that are simulated by artificial intelligence models. Under its BRI, the claimed algorithm falls within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the recited additional limitations in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and well-known/conventional techniques. The claim does not include any limitation that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
Particularly, under the BRI, the limitation S4 recited in claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. For example, prior art reference JEONG et al. (KR20110066246A) as listed in section 7 below teaches measuring/calculating carbon emission amount of a current district heating system and displaying the results on a user-side device/meter for viewing of a user (see discussions of units 470, 370 and 350 in Fig. 3: “the produced carbon dioxide emission information is buffered in the indicator memory (330) …, and then output to the output unit (350) according to the control signal of the indicator control unit (340) (S150). The above output unit (350) displays …”); the user-side device/meter is further configured to receive an operation (e.g., user’s settings via unit 360 in Fig. 3 or other input means allowing the user to control the heating system for desired indoor temperature) performed by the user, on the user-side device/meter, according to related requirements.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 10-14 inherit attributes of the independent claim 9, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, the physical and/or mathematical parameters/variables recited in claims 10-14, such as “the pipeline carbon flow rate, the network loss carbon emission, the nodal carbon flow density, the pipeline carbon flow density, the heat source carbon flow rate, and the heat load carbon flow rate of the district heating system” (claim 10), “a branch heat flow matrix of the water supply network and a branch heat flow matrix of the water return network” (claim 13), and “the water element carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, the actual outlet carbon flow rates of the pipeline at the plurality of time periods, the network loss carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, and the nodal carbon flow densities at the plurality of time periods” (claim 14), are considered merely data characterization to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use but do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 9-14 set forth above.
Claim 1 recites the newly added limitation: “the method being performed by a processor of an electronic device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system”. The claimed “a processor of an electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself. Further, under the BRI, “for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system” encompasses an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. Thus, it does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. See also discussion for the limitation S1 and S2 of claim 9 as set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
5. While there are related references that discuss mathematically estimating a carbon emission amount of the current district heating system based on artificial intelligence models, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including: wherein the pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model is constructed based on a pipeline carbon flow rate, network loss carbon emission, a nodal carbon flow density, a pipeline carbon flow density, a heat source carbon flow rate, and a heat load carbon flow rate of the current district heating system; and wherein the pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model is constructed based on water element carbon flow rates at a plurality of time periods, actual outlet carbon flow rates of a pipeline at the plurality of time periods, network loss carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, and nodal carbon flow densities at the plurality of time periods of the current district heating system. It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1 or 9, that would make the pending claims 1-6 and 9-20 of the present application distinguish over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
6. 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.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest reference Sekiai et al. (US 20090132095 A1) teaches a computer implemented method and device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system (para. 0003), comprising: obtaining a steady carbon emission amount (e.g., Sa) of a current heating system using a pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model (para. 0041: “a model adapted to simulate a characteristic of the plant, learning means for generating an input signal of the model so that an output signal obtained by the model simulating the characteristic of the plant satisfies a predetermined target …”; para. 0042, 0090); obtaining a dynamic (instantaneous) carbon emission amount (e.g., Sm1, Sm2) of the current power plant system using a pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model (para. 0040, 0041: “using a measurement signal obtained by measuring an operation state of the plant, includes manipulation signal generation means for generating the manipulation signal to be transmitted to the plant, a model adapted to simulate a characteristic of the plant, learning means for generating an input signal of the model ...”; see also para. 0064-0065, 0077, 0085); and counting a carbon emission amount of the current power plant system based on the steady carbon emission amount and the dynamic carbon emission amount (para. 0124-0127). However, Sekiai fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 5 set forth above.
Li et al. (CN 113341716 A, machine translation) discloses a large coal-fired power plant CO2 capture system optimization scheduling method based on artificial intelligence but fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 5 set forth above.
Yamada et al. (US 7660639 B2) discloses a method/system for estimating and controlling the change of heating value of fuel and exhaust gas components automatically based on reinforcement learning method. Yamada fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 5 set forth above.
BHATTACHARYYA et al. (CA 3119273 A1) discloses machine-learning-based prediction, planning, and optimization of pollutant emission. BHATTACHARYYA fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 5 set forth above.
JEONG et al. (KR 20110066246 A) discloses a remote meter reading information and carbon dioxide emission check system.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857