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 .
The following is a non-final Office action on the merits in response to Application filed on 12/28/2023. Claims 1-10 are examined and pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application filed in China (CN), filed on 11/17/2022, and the instant application is a 371 of PCT/CN23/72700, filed 1/17/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim 6, recite the limitations “an insulator model generation/screening module”, “a …parameter evaluation module”, “an…optimization module”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “obtain”, “evaluate”, “select”, “optimize”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 6, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the modules appear to be software /programming instructions described in the specification. The Examiner interprets the element “a …generation/screening module”, “a …parameter evaluation module”, “an…optimization module” to be software/programming instructions. There is no corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: See Fig.1, 6, [0017--0026, 0068-0073] of the Applicant's originally filed publication.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim.
The claimed invention (Claims 1-10) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “an idea “of itself”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental process”.
Claim 1, Steps of,
obtaining a plurality of sets of pre-set insulator structure parameters, and inputting each set of insulator structure parameters into an initial insulator model separately to generate a plurality of insulator models;
evaluating an electrical parameter of each of the insulator models at a same temperature to obtain an electric field distribution of each part of each of the insulator models;
selecting a target insulator model from all the insulator models based on a pre-defined model screening condition and the electric field distribution of each part of each of the insulator models;
evaluating a thermodynamic parameter of the target insulator model based on conductivity-temperature variation curves of an insulation material and an insulation gas to obtain a temperature distribution of each part of the target insulator model; and
optimizing the target insulator model based on the temperature distribution of each part of the target insulator model to obtain an optimal insulator model, and
obtaining an insulator based on the optimal insulator model.
fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the instant steps “obtaining parameters, evaluating parameters, selecting a model, optimizing the model, obtaining an insulator”, which are human activities and/or interactions between users/people/devices and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer.
In addition, claim 1, steps mentioned above also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by paper and pen. For example, a human being can observe/collect/receive/obtain data, can evaluate/determine the data, can observe/select a model/a insulator.
Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (an insulator). Other than reciting “an insulator “, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, execute the programming instructions to collect data, couple of databases to store data, select data, run the model. Thus, the server/computer/the insulator, databases, are not an essential element to actually create, change, or display functionality, and is simply used as a tool to automate the mental tasks. Applicants simply use a generic processor/server/computing device/insulator as a tool to implement abstract ideas. The Examiner notes the instant claimed invention is in fact merely carried out by a generically recited computing platform; that is, essentially any computing system as seen in the applicant’s specification. The additional element limitations are simply a field of use that attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor improvement to the functioning of the computer/insulator itself and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 (step 2B): There is an additional element (i.e. an insulator) in claim 1. This additional element is recited at high level of generality and is generic computing components and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer/insulating functions routinely used in the computer/insulating/conductivity applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/device components recited as performing generic computer/ insulating/conductivity functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer/insulator components to receive/transmit/present/display information does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1).
Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims. 2-5, merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 6: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent apparatus/system claim 6, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claim(s) 1.
Further, the components (i.e., an insulator) described in independent claim 6, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Similarly, as relates to the computer apparatus claim, the limitations appear to be performed by a generic computing system/device/insulator. These components are merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/insulator components recited as performing generic insulation/conductivity /computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic insulator/computer components to receive/collect/generate/select information over communication network/internet does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1).
Dependent claims 7-10, merely added further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 6 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 7-10 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Viewed as a whole, the claims (1-10) do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed invention does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea and is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claim 6 are directed to an apparatus/a system as described in the preamble. There’s nothing in the body of the claim that’s structural. Examiner notes that claim 6 recites a system/apparatus but the claims do not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system/an apparatus, such as computer hardware. There is no structure or hardware cited in the system. Examiner further notes that claim 6 recites a device comprising “an insulator model generation/screening module”, “a …parameter evaluation module”, “an…optimization module”, to obtain/evaluate/select/optimize information, which reasonably can consist of purely software components described in the specification (Fig. 1, 6, [0017--0026, 0068-0073]). Software per se is not considered one of the four statutory categories. Using this interpretation, Examiner finds claim 9 void of system/apparatus structure and fails to belong to an appropriate statutory subject class.
Claims 10-14, depending on claim 9, do not cure the deficiencies set forth above.
Therefore, claims 10-14 are rejected under non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2105 and 2106.
Prior Art Rejection
Amended Independent claims 1, 6, recite a combination of limitations that has Not been found as defined over prior art of record (the combination of Harris et al. (US 2022/0004678), Schweizer et al. (US Patent 12,032,192), Wang et al. (US 2010/0185312), Tryon, III et al. (US 2008/0015827),
and
NPL1--G. W. Becker and P. E., "Alternative Insulating Fluids to SF6 Gas Status and Strategy Considerations," 2020 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D), Chicago, IL, USA, 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/TD39804.2020.9299914.
NPL2--C. M. Franck, A. Chachereau and J. Pachin, "SF6-Free Gas-Insulated Switchgear: Current Status and Future Trends," in IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 7-16, Jan.-Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1109/MEI.2021.9290463.
NPL3--G. Chen et al., "Environment-friendly insulating gases for HVDC gas-insulated transmission lines," in CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 510-529, May 2021, doi: 10.17775/CSEEJPES.2019.01060.
NPL4--G. Mazzanti, G. Stomeo and S. Mancini, "State of the art in insulation of gas insulated substations: main issues, achievements, and trends," in IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 18-31, September-October 2016, doi: 10.1109/MEI.2016.7552373.
All the above fail to teach all the required claimed features as in independent claim 1, 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are deemed to be allowed considering the specification, amendments, claims filed on 12/28/2023. As to the prior art rejections, upon further search and consideration, it is found that claims 1-10 are allowable subject to outstanding 101 rejections.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Van der Velden (US 2020/0401672, teaches performing computer-based simulations of real-world objects, and obtaining mesh-based model representing a real-world object and composed of a plurality of mesh elements each having geometric properties. In turn, a simulation of physical behavior of the real-world object is performed using the mesh-based model).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am-5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489.
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/SUN M LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights