DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 02/16/2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1-20 have been indicated to include allowable subject matter over prior arts (However, other rejection(s) apply as detailed below).
- Claim(s) 1-20 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) from application no CN202211619252.3 filed 12/14/2022. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No 18/169,900, filed on 05/16/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 04/06/2023 has/have been considered by examiner.
Specification
The disclosure filed 02/16/2023 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
In addition, the “citys” in the current title should be “cities”.
In addition, [0061] in last line describes, “… or may slao refer to the distance …”, which should be “… or may also refer to the distance …”.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/16/2023 are acknowledged and accepted for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: In 3rd limitation, “… and a distance between two adjacent second collecting device …;” should be “… and a distance between two adjacent second collecting devices …;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are in Claim(s) 1 – a management platform of an Internet of Things system for regulating; obtaining, based on at least one collecting device, temperature data and humidity data.
Claim(s) 2 – the user platform is configured to send a query instruction; the service platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the management platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the sensor network platform is configured to receive the instruction; the object platform is configured to receive the instruction.
Claim(s) 10 – obtaining, based on an image monitoring device, pedestrian flow data.
Claim(s) 11 – an Internet of Things system for regulating; wherein the management platform is configured to: obtain temperature data and humidity data.
Claim 12 - the user platform is configured to send a query instruction; the service platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the management platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the sensor network platform is configured to receive the instruction; the object platform is configured to receive the instruction.
Claim(s) 13 – the management platform is further configured to: construct … and determine ….
Claim(s) 14 – the management platform is further configured to construct.
Claim(s) 16 – the management platform is further configured to predict … and determine ….
Claim(s) 19 – the management platform is further configured to construct … and determine ….
Claim(s) 20 – obtain, based on an image monitoring device, the pedestrian flow data.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Note, for the term obtaining, based on at least “one collecting device”, temperature data and humidity data, in claim 1, examples have been provided in applicant specification, 0056 - In some embodiments, the count of the collecting device 210 is at least one. … In some embodiments, the collecting device 210 may include a temperature and humidity meter.
For the term “the user platform” [that] sends a query instruction in claim 2 and 12, examples have been provided in applicant specification, 0022 - In some embodiments, the user platform 110 is configured as a terminal device. For example, the terminal device may include a mobile device, a tablet computer, etc., or any combination thereof.
For the term “the sensor network platform” [that] receives the instruction in claim 2 and 12, examples have been provided in applicant specification, 0031 - In some embodiments, the sensor network platform 140 may be configured as a communication network and an Internet of Things gateway.
For the term “the object platform” [that] receives the instruction in claim 2 and 12, examples have been provided in applicant specification, 0034 - In some embodiments, the object platform 150 may be configured as various types of data collecting devices, for example, a camera device, a thermometer, a hygrometer, etc.
Examiner will interpret the claim term(s) accordingly under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the abovementioned associated examples.
But no examples or specific definitions have been found based on a review of the specification and drawings for the other abovementioned terms in claims 1-2, 10-14, 16, and 19-20. See below in “35 U.S.C. 112” sections(s) for the details of examiner’s interpretations of the abovementioned claim limitations of claims 1-2, 10-14, 16, and 19-20 in light of applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 1 – a management platform of an Internet of Things system for regulating.
Claim(s) 2 – the service platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the management platform is configured to receive the query instruction.
Claim(s) 10 – obtaining, based on an image monitoring device, pedestrian flow data.
Claim(s) 11 – an Internet of Things system for regulating; wherein the management platform is configured to: obtain temperature data and humidity data.
Claim 12 - the service platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the management platform is configured to receive the query instruction.
Claim(s) 13 – the management platform is further configured to: construct … and determine ….
Claim(s) 14 – the management platform is further configured to construct.
Claim(s) 16 – the management platform is further configured to predict … and determine ….
Claim(s) 19 – the management platform is further configured to construct … and determine ….
Claim(s) 20 – obtain, based on an image monitoring device, the pedestrian flow data.
Based on examiner’s review of the drawings and applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that none of the paragraphs provide for a skilled artisan or for a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to appreciate the intended meaning of the claimed subject matter in the abovementioned claims, because the specification merely uses the same verbiage as the claimed subject matter without any further details to define or provide any specific examples or detailed flowcharts to identify the structure for any of the above terms/phrases. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
The abovementioned features, based on the way they are written, consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Note, while claim(s) 3-9, 15, and 17-18 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency.
If applicant believes there is sufficient written description in the disclosure, applicant is advised to point to the portion of the disclosure that describes the structure(s) that perform the abovementioned claimed functionalities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 1 – a management platform of an Internet of Things system for regulating.
Claim(s) 2 – the service platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the management platform is configured to receive the query instruction.
Claim(s) 10 – obtaining, based on an image monitoring device, pedestrian flow data.
Claim(s) 11 – an Internet of Things system for regulating; wherein the management platform is configured to: obtain temperature data and humidity data.
Claim 12 - the service platform is configured to receive the query instruction; the management platform is configured to receive the query instruction.
Claim(s) 13 – the management platform is further configured to: construct … and determine ….
Claim(s) 14 – the management platform is further configured to construct.
Claim(s) 16 – the management platform is further configured to predict … and determine ….
Claim(s) 19 – the management platform is further configured to construct … and determine ….
Claim(s) 20 – obtain, based on an image monitoring device, the pedestrian flow data.
Based on examiner’s review of the drawings and applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that the claimed subject matter in the abovementioned claims is/are not properly described in the application as filed, because the specification merely uses the same verbiage as the claimed subject matter without any further details to define or provide any specific examples or detailed flowcharts to identify the structure for any of the above terms/phrases. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are indefinite and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of compact prosecution to apply prior art, examiner would interpret the abovementioned terms to be any hardware and/or software that is/are able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Note, while claim(s) 3-9, 15, and 17-18 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency and so this/these inherit(s) the above interpretations as well.
Appropriate corrections are required.
In addition:
(b) Claim 1 recites in its 2nd and 3rd limitations, "… “wherein the at least one collecting device includes at least one first collecting device and at least one second collecting device, the at least one first collecting device is installed at a first preset position inside the carriage, and a distance between two adjacent first collecting devices satisfies a first preset condition; and the at least one second collecting device is installed at a second preset position within a platform, and a distance between two adjacent second collecting device satisfies a second preset condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as for the “two adjacent first collecting devices”, question(s) is/are raised: If the collecting device includes a single first collecting device, how can there be two adjacent first collecting devices? Same question applies for the second collecting devices.
To promote compact prosecution, examiner will interpret these as to read “at least two first collecting devices” and “at least two second collecting devices”.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected for their dependency.
For the rejections above that are related to 37 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation in section (a) above:
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites a system (apparatus), which is a statutory category of invention.
However, claim 11 recites, “determine, based on the temperature data and the humidity data, refrigeration power adjustment values and ventilation adjustment values of the plurality of carriages and generate a control instruction for controlling a temperature regulation device and a ventilation device;”. These limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of determining … values (data) based on some data and generating control instructions (writing up/coding/selecting) as described in applicant specification, [0075], [0115], etc. appear to be an observation/evaluation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind (and/or written with a pen on a paper) based on some known/available (i.e., obtained) data. These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind. Also note, all of these steps, can be written down with a pen on a paper. Note, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The specification does not specify a computer/processor for the structure(s) of the Internet of Things system and/or the management platform, but even if that were the case, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer devices (in the claim) to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract ideas, claim recites additional element(s) such as “wherein the management platform is configured to: obtain temperature data and humidity data inside and outside a carriage of a plurality of carriages of the subway through at least one collecting device; wherein at least one collecting device includes at least one first collecting device and at least one second collecting device, the at least one first collecting device is installed at a first preset position inside the carriage, and a distance between two adjacent first collecting devices satisfies a first preset condition; and the at least one second collecting device is installed at a second preset position within a platform, and a distance between two adjacent second collecting devices satisfies a second preset condition;”, … “regulate temperature of the plurality of carriages through the temperature regulating device; and regulate humidity of the plurality of carriages through the ventilation device.”
The claimed management platform is/are not specifically exemplified as generic computer(s)/processors in specification, but even if that were the case, it would have been merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as 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) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, the limitations regarding obtaining temperature and humidity data amount to data gathering and storing, and transmitting. These limitations do not require any particular machine to acquire the data or any particular transformation of the data. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity which are incidental to the primary process of determining data and do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Next, the placement of the collecting devices and the regulation of temperature and humidity limitations are also recited at a high level of generality. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the same reasons as stated above. For example, The claimed management platform is/are not specifically exemplified as generic computer(s)/processors in specification, but even if that were the case, it would have been merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as 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) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, the limitations regarding obtaining temperature and humidity data amount to data gathering and storing, and transmitting. These limitations do not require any particular machine to acquire the data or any particular transformation of the data. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity which are incidental to the primary process of determining data and do not meaningfully limit the claim. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found recording/storing data (Storing and retrieving information in memory) and obtaining/outputting data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Next, the placement of the collecting devices and the regulation of temperature and humidity limitations are also recited at a high level of generality. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 11. Further, the additional limitation(s) include mere expansion of the data gathering step where this/these limitation(s) just describe(s) the transmission of data as the sending a query instruction, receiving, feeding and uploading language is/are also recited at a high level of generality. The limitation regarding further comprising a user platform, a service platform, a sensor network platform, and an object platform to perform the abovementioned transmission of data are also recited at a high level of generality. While the service platform is not exemplified in the specification, the other platforms are exemplified as generic computing components as in applicant specification, 0022, 0031, 0034, etc. Thus, the recitation of this/these claim limitation(s) is considered as an attempt 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, and so it 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 thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13 depends from claim 11, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 11. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the abstract idea (mental step of constructing vector data and determination of power data based on that, more specifically via performing a vector matching) because absent any further details this is interpreted as a calculation/evaluation human mind is capable doing and/or writing on paper with a pen and thus no significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 13. Further, the additional limitation(s) include mere expansion of the abstract idea (constructing) and adds elements such as a reference database determination module to perform the abovementioned construction in a high level of generality. As the module is not exemplified in the specification, the recitation of this/these claim limitation(s) is considered as an attempt 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, and so it 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 thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15 (depends on claim 14) is rejected similarly as it only describes the data type further and nothing more.
Claim 16 depends from claim 13, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 13. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the abstract idea (mental step of predicting and determining values by calculating based on other data/values) because absent any further details this is interpreted as a calculation/evaluation human mind is capable doing and/or writing on paper with a pen. The generic mention of a machine learning model is considered to be equivalent to the words “apply it” and nothing more. Thus, no significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 17-18 (depend(s) on claim 16) is rejected similarly as it/these only describe(s) the data types further and nothing more.
Claim 19 depends on claim 16 and is rejected for the reasons similar to those of claim 13 due to being mere expansion of abstract idea and nothing more.
Claim 20 depends from claim 11, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 11. Further, the additional limitation(s) include using additional type of data provided via an image monitoring device, which does not integrate the invention into a practical application because using computing components recited in high level of generality is merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as 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) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The determination step along with the control instruction generation afterwards is a mere expansion of the mental step and nothing more.
Similar analysis (of independent claim 11) is applicable to independent claim(s) 1 and this/these is/are thus also not patent eligible. The statutory category of claims 1 is/are different – this is a method (process) claim.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 12.
Claim 3 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 13.
Claim 4 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 14.
Claim 5 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 15.
Claim 6 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 16.
Claim 7-8 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 17-18.
Claim 9 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 19.
Claim 10 is/are rejected based on similar reasonings for claim 20.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (along with 112a, 112b and other informalities as applicable) set forth in this Office action as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
Claims 1-20:
Claim 1 recites,
A method for regulating air conditioning temperature of a subway in a smart city, wherein the method is executed based on a management platform of an Internet of Things system for regulating air conditioning temperature of a subway in a smart city, comprising:
obtaining, based on at least one collecting device, temperature data and humidity data inside and outside a carriage of a plurality of carriages of the subway;
wherein the at least one collecting device includes at least one first collecting device and at least one second collecting device, the at least one first collecting device is installed at a first preset position inside the carriage, and a distance between two adjacent first collecting devices satisfies a first preset condition;
and the at least one second collecting device is installed at a second preset position within a platform, and a distance between two adjacent second collecting device satisfies a second preset condition;
and determining, based on the temperature data and the humidity data, refrigeration power adjustment values and ventilation adjustment values of the plurality of carriages and generating a control instruction for controlling a temperature regulation device and a ventilation device.
A thorough search has been conducted for the subject matter with the most relevant prior art found to be discussed:
Regarding claim 1, closest prior arts identified are Kim (KR 100999861 B1 – Translated Version), Park (KR 102079169 B1 - Translated Version), and Shi (CN 113830115 A - Translated Version):
Kim (KR 100999861 B1 – Translated Version) in abstract, Fig. 1-9 and relevant description teaches a remote temperature control apparatus and method of an air conditioning system for an electric train to measure the accurate temperature of each passenger room and remotely control an air conditioning system of each passenger room based on the temperature.
More specifically, p6, last para teaches, “The present invention provides a remote temperature control device for an electric vehicle heating and heating device, characterized in that a plurality of external temperature sensors can be installed at a lower portion of the platform of the platform so as to correspond to each room one by one. It provides a way.”, which reads on “a distance between two adjacent second collecting devices satisfies a second preset condition”.
Then p11 last 2 paras teach, “The temperature information collecting step (S11) is a step of collecting the measured values measured by a plurality of temperature sensors 320 installed in the room 30, the central controller 110 in the controller 310 to the temperature sensor ( In case of transmitting a signal requesting the measurement value of 320 or when the controller 310 receives the measurement value of the temperature sensor 320 at a predetermined time interval, the electric vehicle internal temperature measurement value measured by the temperature sensor 320 is measured. It is transmitted to the controller 310 through the second communication module 311, and is again transmitted to the central control unit 110 through the first communication module 111. In this case, each controller 310 automatically transmits its own controller ID together so that the central controller 110 can classify which cabin 30 the corresponding information is.” See FIG. 2 where the internal sensors 320 are adjacent at a distance, which reads on “a distance between two adjacent first collecting devices satisfies a first preset condition”.
However, there is no teaching in Kim regarding humidity data for both the inside of the carriage(s) and the outside of the carriage(s) on the platform, collected by any of these sensors and hence Kim does not teach or suggest the details of data collection and then both of the collected data being the basis for the determination (refrigeration power adjustment values and ventilation adjustment values) and generation (of control instruction for controlling both devices - a temperature regulation device and a ventilation device).
Park (KR 102079169 B1 - Translated Version) – This art generally teaches a railroad facility management system based on the Internet of things and a management method thereof, which includes a smart sensor part transmitting information about whether security, fire occurrence and air quality are normal to the central management server part and adjusting the lighting and illuminance
of the railroad facility. It also includes a smart control part analyzing and controlling a command transmitted from the smartphone or the central management server part (abstract, Fig. 1-5), but it does not teach/suggest all the limitations needed by the instant application’s claim 1 (such as placement of sensors, measurement of temperature and humidity data from inside and outside of the carriage(s) and these being the basis for the determination and generation of control instruction steps.)
Shi (CN 113830115 A - Translated Version) – This art generally teaches a control method of variable frequency subway air conditioner set, device and readable storage medium, wherein the variable frequency subway air conditioner set control method comprises: obtaining the outdoor temperature outside the subway at the preset time interval; according to the outdoor temperature of the current outdoor temperature and the previous time point, obtaining the change value of the outdoor temperature; if the change value is greater than the deviation threshold value, then the change value input temperature control model to obtain the frequency adjustment value; adjusting the frequency of the compressor of the air conditioning unit to the frequency adjusting value. Through the application, according to the frequency of the active pre-modulation variable frequency compressor to adapt the change of the vehicle load caused by outdoor temperature change, solving the problem of severe fluctuation of the external temperature when entering and exiting the tunnel, realizing the indoor temperature is kept at a comfortable temperature (abstract, Fig. 1-4). However, it does not teach/suggest all the limitations needed by the instant application’s claim 1 (such as placement of sensors, measurement of temperature and humidity data from inside and outside of the carriage(s) and these being the basis for the determination and generation of control instruction steps.)
No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches, “obtaining, based on at least one collecting device, temperature data and humidity data inside and outside a carriage of a plurality of carriages of the subway; wherein the at least one collecting device includes at least one first collecting device and at least one second collecting device, the at least one first collecting device is installed at a first preset position inside the carriage, and a distance between two adjacent first collecting devices satisfies a first preset condition; and the at least one second collecting device is installed at a second preset position within a platform, and a distance between two adjacent second collecting device satisfies a second preset condition; and determining, based on the temperature data and the humidity data, refrigeration power adjustment values and ventilation adjustment values of the plurality of carriages and generating a control instruction for controlling a temperature regulation device and a ventilation device.”, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, regarding claim 1, the identified prior arts alone or in combination do not describe all the limitations.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 11, which also would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (along with 112a, 112b and other informalities as applicable) set forth in this Office action. Note, claims 2-10, and 12-20 depend from independent claims 1, and 11 respectively.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
RISBECK et al. (US 20210041127 A1) relates generally to a controller for HVAC equipment that stores a cascaded model that includes a disturbance model configured to predict a heat disturbance affecting the building zone as a function of one or more exogenous parameters and a physics model configured to predict a temperature of the building zone as a function of the heat disturbance and an amount of heating or cooling provided to the building zone by HVAC equipment. … For example, control system 600 and controller 204 can be used to control any type of environmental condition (e.g., humidity, temperature, air quality, carbon dioxide levels, pollutant levels, air pressure, air flow, lighting, etc.) within any type of space (e.g., a building zone; a vehicle such as an airplane, automobile, train, etc.; an indoor or outdoor space; a factory, etc.). Additionally, control system 600 and controller 204 can be used to control other types of systems or processes (e.g., manufacturing processes, industrial processes, construction processes, chemical processes, etc.) that are subject to disturbances regardless of whether the system or process affects environmental conditions within a building.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on T-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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 571-273-5441.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117