DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 01/05/2026.
Claims 1-3,5-20 and 22-35 are pending. Claims 4, 21 and 36 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 15, 17, 18, 32, and 35 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the non-statutory subject matter rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1, 18, 35 and 36, applicant disagrees that the claim “would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps” and submits that the claims recite a unique solution methodology using a holomorphic embedding of the heat flow equations, and submits that the inventors have discovered a real world problem and developed a real world solution (see para. 0004 on page 10-11 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as currently presented the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “forming heat flow equations from the received thermal data; developing temperatures for an embedded heat flow equation wherein the embedded heat flow equation results from the embedding of the heat flow equations in a holomorphic embedding using a complex embedding parameter s, where s is a variable in a complex domain that includes a value s=0 that represents a thermal environment with the same temperature throughout, and includes a value s=1 that represents the thermal environment with all thermal nodes connected, wherein each variable of the embedded heat flow equation is contained as a function of the variable s by said holomorphic embedding, said temperatures being developed in power series about s=0;substituting said thermal data into said embedded heat flow equation and obtaining a recurrence relationship that obtains coefficients of said power series at order N+1 from the coefficients at order N and preceding orders; progressively computing successive terms of the power series; and determining the unknown temperatures using the successive terms of the power series by calculating the analytical continuation of the power series at s=1”.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, as presented the claimed invention is not tied to a particular machine and particular environment, but generally links the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. thermal management environment), and would monopolize the use of the abstract idea as the claims are not tied to a particular environment and as such is claiming a mathematical process for the determination of temperature and heat flow, for any environment and would monopolize the abstract idea.
Examiner further submits that even if the that the claimed calculations steps and steps were new, these steps discussed above still considered to be an abstract idea without more since these argued features are concepts are part of the abstract idea and are merely concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper i.e. comparing and determining steps, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers i.e. calculating steps. The examiner further submits that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, so arguing a claim is new is not persuasive by itself.
Furthermore, the combination of steps do not outputs the data in an unconventional way as to provide an inventive concept and the outputting/using of the data is do not apply the abstract idea in an unconventional way as to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore it is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
In the instant application the process is purely mathematical and the additional claimed limitation “using said determined temperatures, said at least one processor providing control signals to the supervisory and data acquisition system for managing the thermal environment” is claiming an use without specifying how the use is being practiced, in addition the recitation of “managing the thermal environment” is intended use of the temperatures determined values since no actual control function is being claimed.
Applicant that the claims as amended do not recite an abstract idea since the claim as amended recites “the thermal environment, the supervisory control and data acquisition system that is in data communication with the nodes of thermal environment, and the method to use the devices to control the thermal environment (see para. 0005, page 11 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above, the amended claims do recite an abstract idea. The additional claimed elements of “the thermal environment, the supervisory control and data acquisition system that is in data communication with the nodes of thermal environment, and the method to use the devices to control the thermal environment” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself since the argued additional claimed elements amount to the recitation of a general purpose computer (i.e. supervisory control), mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality (i.e. data acquisition system), collecting thermal data from the plurality of thermal nodes and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. thermal environment) and therefore it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues that as amended claims 1, 18 and 35 recite a practical application of the claimed method to wit: “using said determined temperatures to provide control signals for managing the thermal environment” (see para. 0006, page 11 of the remarks). Applicant further submits that the claims do not merely present vague generalities without specific implementation, but instead very specifically provide a unique solution for determining and controlling temperatures in a thermal environment (see para. 0007, page 11 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claimed language do not reflect an improvement to the operation of the computer and that the combination of steps cannot be considered to provide an inventive concept since it merely recites an use without specifying how the use is being practiced, and because the recitation of “managing the thermal environment” is intended use of the temperatures determined values since no actual control function is being claimed, and is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that when examined as a whole, the specific features, steps, and limitations of independent claims 1, 18 and 35 provide a specific solution to a real world that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, and thus constitute an inventive concept- something more than an abstract idea merely implemented on a generic computer. Applicant submits that because the claim elements define a specific implementation of a solution to a stated problem, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the claims a whole amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, and as the Enfish court concluded, such claims are not abstract.
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claims of instant application are distinct from those of Enfish because the claims do not reflect the argued specific technique to solve a technological problem nor reflect an improvement to the technology.
In Enfish, the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e. a self-referential table for a computer database). In sum, the self-referential table recited in the claims is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. In Enfish The claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases such as increased flexibility, faster search times and smaller memory requirements. In the Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case the Federal circuit held that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and further held that the claims covered "an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity",
In the instant application the claimed invention as presented on the claims is not improving the computer technology but merely using a generic computer to perform calculations, (i.e. forming heat flow equations, substituting thermal data into an embedded heat flow equation, compute successive terms, determining temperatures), and data processing which is considered abstract, in addition the instant application claims does not correspond to a technology improvement, the logic or structure recited on the claims does not show specific steps as recited logic step to be considered an improvement to the computer functionality. The argued improvements appear to be a conclusory statement since the claim language does not reflect what the applicant is stating in the arguments. In addition, the claims do not reflect improvement to the computer processing but simply uses a general purpose computer for performing calculations and determination of parameters (i.e. determining unknown temperatures).
Furthermore, the claimed language the applicant argues is an provide a specific solution to a real world that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, (i.e. “using said determined temperatures, said at least one processor providing control signals t the supervisory and data acquisition system for managing the thermal environment”) do not reflect an improvement to the operation of the computer and that the combination of steps cannot be considered to provide an inventive concept since it merely recites an use without specifying how the use is being practiced, and because the recitation of “managing the thermal environment” is intended use of the temperatures determined values since no actual control function is being claimed, and is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea.
Therefore the claims stand rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see rejections above).
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 1-3, 5-20 and 22-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is an apparatus claim. Likewise, claim 18, is a method claim and claim 35 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, 18, and 35 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “forming heat flow equations from the received thermal data; developing temperatures for an embedded heat flow equation wherein the embedded heat flow equation results from the embedding of the heat flow equations in a holomorphic embedding using a complex embedding parameter s, where s is a variable in a complex domain that includes a value s=0 that represents a thermal environment with the same temperature throughout, and includes a value s=1 that represents the thermal environment with all thermal nodes connected, wherein each variable of the embedded heat flow equation is contained as a function of the variable s by said holomorphic embedding, said temperatures being developed in power series about s=0;substituting said thermal data into said embedded heat flow equation and obtaining a recurrence relationship that obtains coefficients of said power series at order N+1 from the coefficients at order N and preceding orders; progressively computing successive terms of the power series; and determining the unknown temperatures using the successive terms of the power series by calculating the analytical continuation of the power series at s=1”, and “using said determined temperatures…for managing the thermal environment”. The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Claim 18 is a method, and claim 35 is a non-transitory computer readable medium, and claim 36 is a computer program with substantially similar claim language as the apparatus of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “apparatus for solving steady-state temperature profile…comprising at least one memory and at least one processor”, “supervisory and data acquisition system”, “at least one processor”, (claim 1) “computer implemented method”, “supervisory and data acquisition system”, (claim 18), “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions once executed on a processor…”, “computer implemented method” (claim 35), and “computer program… executed on a processor… performing… computer implemented method” (claim 36) amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the “data acquisition system”, “receiving thermal data from the plurality of thermal nodes…the thermal data corresponding to different points of the thermal environment” (claims 1, 18, 35, 36), is mere gathering recited at high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. thermal environment) and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. transmitting the thermal data) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 18, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-17 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-17 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion wherein the heat flow equations model the thermal environment, and wherein the thermal environment comprises non-linear elements, and the heat flow equations approximate the nonlinearity of the non-linear elements by algebraic functions (claim 5), “wherein the heat flow equations comprise a term representing at least one of: generated heat, heat propagation via convection, radiation, and extracted heat” (claim 6), “computing algebraic approximants to determine a sum of all the coefficients of the power series expansion for the heat flow equations representative of current, physical heat flow” (claim 7), “wherein the embedded heat flow equation further comprises a radiation term as a function of the fourth power of temperature” (claim 11), “wherein using said determined temperatures to provide control signals to the supervisory and data acquisition system for managing the thermal environment comprises at least one of operating, visualizing, designing, managing, modifying, and optimizing the thermal environment” (claim 15), and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 2-3, 5, 8-10,12-14, 16).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-3 and 5-17 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation of “providing a continuous, real-time measure of the heat flow in the thermal environment” (claim 16), amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. display device…for displaying the updated temperatures and heat flows) and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. thermal environment).
The claim(s) 2-3 and 5-17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “units” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. updating values displaying the updated values, [claims 16-17]) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 19-20 and 22-34 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 18.
Dependent claims 19-20 and 22-34 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion wherein the heat flow equations model the thermal environment, and wherein the thermal environment comprises non-linear elements, and the heat flow equations approximate the nonlinearity of the non-linear elements by algebraic functions (claim 22), “wherein the heat flow equations comprise a term representing at least one of: generated heat, heat propagation via convection, radiation, and extracted heat” (claim 23), “computing algebraic approximants to determine a sum of all the coefficients of the power series expansion for the heat flow equations representative of current, physical heat flow” (claim 24), “wherein the embedded heat flow equation further comprises a radiation term as a function of the fourth power of temperature” (claim 28), “wherein using said determined temperatures for managing the thermal environment comprises at least one of operating, visualizing, designing, managing, modifying, and optimizing the thermal environment” (claim 32), and mere data characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (claim 19-20, 22, 25-27, 29-31, 33).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 19-20 and 22-34 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation of “providing a continuous, real-time measure of the heat flow in the thermal environment” (claim 33), amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) 19-34 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer “units” used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities (i.e. updating values displaying the updated values, [claims 33-34]) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Discussion of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Den Bossche US 20220254504 A1 discloses a simulation of temperatures in the body when in a controllable environment, receiving a property of the body obtained by measurements, calculating a body-specific parameter of a bioheat model based on the property, obtaining at least one environment-specific parameter, and calculating the temperatures in the body by solving the model taking the body-specific and environment-specific parameters into account (see abstract, para. 0001). The method uses a bioheat model of the body. The bioheat model comprises, e.g. can be expressed as, a plurality of equations representative of an equivalent thermal circuit 50, wherein the plurality of equations may comprise or consist of an equation for each node having a specific temperature variable associated therewith, which may express a sum of rates of heat transfer (summed over all modelled heat transfer processes involving that node) to (or from) the ‘node’, which sum may be equated to either zero (assuming a steady-state model) (see para. 0066-0067) and further discloses a bioheat model that may be solved to obtain a steady-state solution (see para. 0068). The method further comprises calculating the temperatures in the body by numerically solving the bioheat model, in which the body-specific parameter(s) and the environment-specific parameter(s) are taken into account. For example, calculating the temperatures may comprise solving (e.g. jointly solving) the plurality of equations representative of the equivalent thermal circuit 50 in accordance with a steady-state requirement. For example, such steady-state requirement may be a requirement of these temperatures being constant, i.e. such that a temporal derivative of the temperatures can be equated to zero (and thus, removed as variables to solve). Therefore, in such steady-state scenario, each of the equations may express a sum of rates of heat transfer that is equated to zero, and the problem can be solved by minimizing an error, in which this error expresses a deviation from this zero balance state, e.g. a sum (over the number of equations) of error terms (e.g. square of the sum of heat transfer rates) (see para. 0132).
Chen US20210333338A1 discloses a method for evaluating ultimate demagnetization temperature of magnet based on finite-element analysis (FEA) simulation of magnetic loop system. Through such system, an operation point at room temperature (20° C.) can be obtained and a value of load line slope Pc can be further precisely obtained, and the ultimate demagnetization temperature of magnet in a loudspeaker system can be obtained accurately in the end by importing the to-be-solved variables and formulas into a FEA simulation through the temperature coefficient of magnet itself and, hence, by the solution and steady-state analysis using this system (abstract, para. 0006, 0073).
Gu et al. US2018/0356105 discloses a method characterized in that the average indoor temperature in the heating area is: (1) a real heat transfer process is very complex and comprises convection, conduction and radiation, and the heat loss of the building envelope of the building is solved by only adopting a heat loss calculation formula under a steady state environment herein in order to simplify the heat transfer process (claim 5).
However the closest prior art of record either in singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations set forth by independent claims 1, 18, 35-36, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 at (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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857