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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-21, filed 23 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Applicants have amended claims 22 and 32 in a self-explanatory manner. In view of the foregoing, applicants contend claims 22 and 23-25 fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, and withdrawal of the rejection is therefore requested.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are made.
Applicant argues on pgs. 9-17, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Taken as a whole, applicants' claimed method would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be limited to a useful practical application, i.e., improving the operation of an industrial heat exchanger monitoring system, by implementing a specific optimization technique that enhances the accuracy and robustness of fouling ascertainment. In particular, independent claims 18, 35 and 36 recite optimizing the value of at least one parameter utilizing a target function based on a time derivative of the function together with a parameter optimization algorithm, which technically improves heat exchanger monitoring by reducing sensitivity to slow fouling dynamics and operating point fluctuations in sensor data. This is a domain specific computational solution to a domain specific engineering problem in thermal systems, not a generic use of mathematics. Accordingly, amended independent claims 18, 35, and 36 recite significantly more than an abstract idea by claiming a specific technique that improves the functioning of an industrial monitoring process and yields more accurate, stable fouling values for use in plant operation.
As stated, applicants' claimed method, device and non-transitory computer-readable medium provide an improvement to the technological field of industrial process technology (automation systems), and is therefore in fact limited to a useful practical application.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology of technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Applicant cites paras. [0006]-[0007] and [0019] as providing a shortfall within the technology. Applicant then cites paras. [0072]-[0139] as providing the technological improvement. To that extent, it is noted that the specification contained within the file wrapper submitted on 9/29/2023 does not contain paragraph numerals. However, the examiner has correlated publication number US20240183629 of the application with the cited paragraph numbers. Paras. [0006]-[0007] are found on pg. 2 and para. [0019] is found on pg. 8 of Applicant’s disclosure. Paras. [0072]-[0139] may be found on pgs. 18-31 of Applicant’s disclosure. Paras. [0006]-[0007] discloses an accumulation of hidden formations within the heat exchanger which is difficult to identify from the outside, wherein a temperature control circuit may be utilized for compensation. Para. [0019] discloses the objective of the present claimed invention. Paras. [0072]-[0139] are cited by the applicant as providing the improvement, but does not elaborate on what the improvement actually is. Paras. [0072]-[0139] discuss the embodiments of figs. 1-7 and the entirety of the detailed description. The Applicant has not cited any particular limitation within the entirety of the detailed description as providing the improvement and the specification does not provide a limitation for claiming an improvement. Therefore, the first criteria has not been met as the Applicant has failed to cite to an improvement by merely citing all of the Detailed Description.
Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
The applicant has cited the entirety of the detailed description as providing the improvement, as opposed to “includ[ing] a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art;” e.g., see Applicant’s Response, pg. 14 and MPEP 2106.05(a) It is clear that the independent claims do not encompass the entirety of the limitations of the detailed description and therefore must necessarily fall short of reflected the claimed disclosed improvements; e.g., none of the instant claims disclose a counterflow heat exchanger, utilizing a temperature sensor, utilizing a flow rate sensor, measuring a flow rate, an inlet temperature, an outlet temperature, a thermal capacity, a density, a heat transfer coefficient, a mean logarithmic temperature difference, taking temporal profiles of measured values, a fouling resistance, etc. Therefore the second criteria has not been met.
Applicant argues on pgs. 19-20, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Hanov fails to teach or suggest the fouling indication comprises a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on the flow rate and temperature of at least one of the first medium and the second medium. Hanov therefore fails to teach or suggest the step of “utilizing a function with at least one parameter, said function describing a dependence of a first variable comprising a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rate and a temperature of at least one of the first medium and the second medium…”, as now called for by amended independent claim 18. Hays, for its part, was cited for the feature “comprising a simultaneous influence of changes in flow rate and temperature…”. the cited paragraph of Hays describe an average fouling factor is calculated based on thermocouples that simultaneously monitor fluid temperature and fluid velocity. The combination of Hanov and Hays fails to teach or suggest amended independent claim 18, because Hays fails to provide Hanov lacks.”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments persuasive and agrees insofar as Hanov in view of Hays is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing amended limitations. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 36 and 40 are objected to for the following minor informalities.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36, line 11 discloses “first mediums.” This appears to be a typographical error wherein “first medium” is construed. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 40, line 9 discloses “first mediums.” This appears to be a typographical error wherein “first medium” is construed. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18-34, 36-38, and 40 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the measured values" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “from measured values” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 18, lines 4-7 discloses utilizing a function with at least one parameter. Claim 18, lines 9-10 discloses “ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter from the measured values of at least one of the first mediums and second mediums.” The only step prior to this is “utilizing a function” wherein no measurement is taken, and is therefore unclear on how a value for the at least one parameter can be ascertained from a measured value that was never taken. For the purposes of the present examination, “ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter from the utilized function with the at least one parameter” is construed. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 19-34 and 37-38 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 18.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 36, lines 1-2 discloses “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” line 6 discloses utilizing program code, and line 10 discloses a further recitation of program code.” Claim 36, lines 10-11 discloses “aided by measured values of at least one of the first mediums and second medium.” Claim 36 does not disclose a measuring apparatus; e.g., probe/sensor/transducer/detector/meter, for obtaining a measurement. Therefore it is unclear where how the program code is aided by measured values when none are taken. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Further clarification is required.
Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 36, lines 1-3 disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to.” Claim 36, line 3 discloses “ascertain fouling.” It is unclear how a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instructions, and a computer may ascertain data from a heat exchanger without the use of a sensor/probe; e.g., a temperature and/or flow rate sensor. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, ascertaining a fouling with a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instructions, and computer is not possible without measurement device and/or an interface for providing such data. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 40, lines 8-9 disclose “ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter aided by measured values of at least one of the first mediums and second medium.” No prior step of taking measurements is disclosed as a limitation of claim 40. Therefore it is unclear how a value may be ascertained which are “aided by measured values.” For the purposes of the present examination, a step of taking measurements is required. However, further clarification is required.
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 18-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 18-34 and 37-38 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A method for ascertaining fouling in a heat exchanger in which heat is transferred from a first medium to a second medium through a wall, the method comprising:
utilizing a function with at least one parameter, said function describing a dependence of a first variable comprising a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rate and a temperature of at least one of the first medium and the second medium;
ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter from the measured values of at least one of the first mediums and the second medium; and
optimizing the value of the at least one parameter utilizing a target function based on a time derivative of said function and a parameter-optimization algorithm to improve accuracy of heat-exchanger monitoring such that sensitivity to slow fouling dynamics and operating-point changes is reduced.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses utilizing a function with at least one parameter, said function describing a dependence of a first variable comprising a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rate and a temperature; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter from the measured values; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; optimizing the value of the at least one parameter utilizing a target function based on a time derivative of said function and a parameter-optimization algorithm to improve accuracy such that sensitivity to slow fouling dynamics and operating-point changes is reduced; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical relationship and/or calculation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
of at least one of the first medium and the second medium;
of at least one of the first mediums and the second medium;
of heat-exchanger monitoring
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 19-34 and 37-38 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 35 and 39 are directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 35 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A device for ascertaining fouling in a heat exchanger in which heat is transferred from a first medium to a second medium through a wall, said device comprising:
a facility for receiving a measured value or a variables of the heat exchanger derived therefrom; and
an evaluating facility in which a function with at least one parameter describing a dependence of a first variable comprising a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rat and a temperature of at least one of the first medium and the second medium is stored;
wherein the evaluating facility is configured to ascertain a value for the at least one parameter aided by the measured values or the variables derived therefrom of at least one of the first medium and the second medium; and
wherein the evaluating facility is further configured to optimize the value of the at least one parameter utilizing a target function based on a time derivative of said function and a parameter-optimization algorithm to improve accuracy of heat-exchanger monitoring such that sensitivity to slow fouling dynamics, and operating-point changes is reduced.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 35 discloses receiving a measured value or a variables; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; in which a function with at least one parameter describing a dependence of a first variable comprising a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rat and a temperature is stored; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; ascertain a value for the at least one parameter aided by the measured values or the variables derived therefrom and; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; optimize the value of the at least one parameter utilizing a target function based on a time derivative of said function and a parameter-optimization algorithm to improve accuracy such that sensitivity to slow fouling dynamics, and operating-point changes is reduced; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical relationship. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 35 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 35 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 35 further recites:
a facility for
an evaluating facility
wherein the evaluating facility is configured to
wherein the evaluating facility is further configured to
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 35 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
of the heat exchanger derived therefrom;
of at least one of the first medium and the second medium
of at least one of the first medium and the second medium
of heat-exchanger monitoring
Analyzing this additional element of claim 35 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 35 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 39 merely recites further details of the abstract idea of claim 35 and therefore does not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 36 is directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 36 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to ascertain fouling in a heat exchanger in which heat is transferred from a first medium to a second medium through a wall, the instructions comprising:
program code for utilizing a function with at least one parameter, said function describing a dependence of a fist variable comprising a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rate and a temperature of at least one of the first medium and the second medium; and
program code for ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter aided by measured values of at least one of the first mediums and the second medium.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 36 discloses ascertain fouling in which heat is transferred; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; utilizing a function with at least one parameter, said function describing a dependence of a fist variable comprising a heat-transfer characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rate and a temperature and; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical relationship; ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical calculation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 36 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 36 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 36 further recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to
the instructions comprising:
program code for
program code for
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 36 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
in a heat exchanger
from a first medium to a second medium through a wall
of at least one of the first medium and the second medium
aided by measured values of at least one of the first mediums and the second medium.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 36 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 36 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1:
Claim 40 is directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 40 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A method for ascertaining fouling in a heat exchanger in which heat is transferred from a first medium to a second medium through a wall, the method comprising:
utilizing a function with at least one parameter, said function describing a dependence of a first variable comprising a flow characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rate and a temperature of at least one of the first medium and the second medium comprising a simultaneous influence of changes in flow rate and temperature on the first variable;
ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter aided by measured values of at least one of the first mediums and the second medium;
optimizing the value of the at least one parameter utilizing a target function based on a time derivative of said function and a parameter-optimization algorithm to improve accuracy of heat-exchanger monitoring such that sensitivity to slow fouling dynamics and operating-point changes is reduced.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 40 discloses utilizing a function with at least one parameter, said function describing a dependence of a first variable comprising a flow characteristic influenced by the fouling on at least one of a flow rate and a temperature comprising a simultaneous influence of changes in flow rate and temperature on the first variable; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical relationship; ascertaining a value for the at least one parameter; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical relationship; optimizing the value of the at least one parameter utilizing a target function based on a time derivative of said function and a parameter-optimization algorithm to improve accuracy such that sensitivity to slow fouling dynamics and operating-point changes is reduced; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical relationship. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 40 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 40 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 40 further recites:
of at least one of the first medium and the second medium
aided by measured values of at least one of the first mediums and the second medium
of heat-exchanger monitoring
Analyzing this additional element of claim 40 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 40 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2010/0020844 A1 to Ashe relates to a monitoring system.
US 2012/0145373 A1 to Chadwick relates to a firetube having thermal conducting passageways.
US 5,429,178 A to Garey et al. relates to a dual tube fouling monitor and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights