DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 15-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and Claims 12-14 are directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-16 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A method for simulating an experience of comfort in a room, comprising the following steps:
creating a digital model A of the room;
defining indoor and/or outdoor conditions YR, XR which act on the room;
calculating a first experience of comfort KR for at least one location within the room;
providing a test environment comprising at least one actuator that acts on a subject; and
changing a state XMR of the at least one actuator such that a second experience of comfort KMR of the subject in the test environment substantially corresponds to the first experience of comfort KR at the at least one location within the room.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because defining conditions for the room, calculating an experience metric, providing a test environment and changing the state of the test environment using an actuator are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 12 & 15 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-14, & 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2, 16 recites the type of actuator, claims 3, 7, 17 recites properties of the digital room, claim 4 recites the conditions, claims 5-6, 13-14 recite calculating the experience metric, claims 8 & 18 recites changing the actuator of the test environment, claim 9 recites the user changing conditions, claims 10-11, 19-20 recites receiving the state of the actuator. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 12 & 15, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A method for simulating an experience of comfort in a room, comprising the following steps:
creating a digital model A of the room;
defining indoor and/or outdoor conditions YR, XR which act on the room;
calculating a first experience of comfort KR for at least one location within the room;
providing a test environment comprising at least one actuator that acts on a subject; and
changing a state XMR of the at least one actuator such that a second experience of comfort KMR of the subject in the test environment substantially corresponds to the first experience of comfort KR at the at least one location within the room.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of creating a digital model of a room, the Examiner submits that these additional claim limitations amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 12 & 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Dependent claim 11 recites to using an artificial intelligence to determine the state of an actuator which amounts to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitation of creating a digital model of a room, the Examiner submits that these additional claim limitations amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “substantially” in claims 1, 12 & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-14, & 16-20 are also rejected due to their dependency from claims 1, 12, & 15.
Claims 10-11 are also rejected 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. Claims 10-11 recite the limitation "desired second experience of comfort". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 12, & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozcelik et al. (“Understanding human-building interactions under multimodal discomfort”)(hereinafter Ozcelik).
As per claim 1, Ozcelik discloses a method for simulating an experience of comfort in a room, comprising the following steps:
creating a digital model A of the room (pg. 282: virtual environment);
defining indoor and/or outdoor conditions YR, XR which act on the room (pg. 282: virtual environment characteristics);
calculating a first experience of comfort KR for at least one location within the room (pg. 283: discomfort condition);
providing a test environment comprising at least one actuator that acts on a subject (pg. 283 & pg. 283: virtual environments created by changing conditions); and
changing a state XMR of the at least one actuator such that a second experience of comfort KMR of the subject in the test environment substantially corresponds to the first experience of comfort KR at the at least one location within the room (pg. 282-285: visual and thermal stimuli in test environment adjusted to reach discomfort condition).
As per claim 2, Ozcelik discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator is selected from a light source, a monitor, a loudspeaker, headphones, VR glasses, MR glasses, an infrared heater, a cooling panel, a fan, or a device for releasing gaseous or vaporous emissions (pg. 284: lighting conditions adjusted in virtual environment).
As per claim 3, Ozcelik discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the digital model A of the room comprises properties of at least one boundary surface, properties of at least one window, properties of at least one door, properties of at least one heat source in the room, properties of at least one sound source in the room, properties of at least one light source in the room, or properties of at least one source of gaseous emissions in the room (pg. 282: virtual environments created with different visual properties).
As per claim 4, Ozcelik discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the indoor and/or outdoor conditions are selected from a thermal effect, an illuminance, a sound effect, an air flow, or at least one olfactory stimulus (pg. 284: lighting conditions adjusted in virtual environment).
As per claim 8, Ozcelik discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the conditions YMR are captured by at least one sensor (pg. 283: sensors) and the state XMR of the at least one actuator is changed according to the sensor signals (pg. 283: discomfort condition with specific indoor temperature), further wherein the second experience of comfort KMR of the subject substantially corresponds to the first experience of comfort KR at the at least one location within the room (pg. 283-285: virtual environment adjusted based on participant input to change comfort level).
As per claim 9, Ozcelik discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the subject can influence the indoor and/or outdoor conditions YR, XR which act on the room (pg. 283: subjects can control characteristics of virtual environment).
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 15-17 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-3, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 8, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within dependent claims 5-7, 10-11, 13-14, & 19-20. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: multiplying the indoor and/or outdoor conditions XR by the digital model A of the room to obtain conditions YR prevalent within the room; and multiplying conditions YR prevalent within the room by a digital comfort model B to determine the first experience of comfort KR of the subject; multiplying the state XMR of at least one actuator by a digital model AMR of the test environment to obtain conditions YMR prevalent in the test environment; and multiplying conditions YMR prevalent in the test environment by the digital comfort model B to determine the second experience of comfort KMR of the subject; wherein the state XMR of the at least one actuator is retrieved from at least one conversion table according to the desired second experience of comfort KMR of the subject; and wherein the state XMR of the at least one actuator is determined by an artificial intelligence according to the desired second experience of comfort KMR of the subject.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Ozcelik et al. ” Understanding human-building interactions under multimodal discomfort” teaches measured human response to multimodal sensory discomfort (i.e., multimodal perception of visual and thermal discomfort) in a simulated single occupancy office. Hildebrandt (WO2024002668A1) teaches to provides that the virtual model of the real air conditioning device is controlled by means of a virtual model of a control device provided for the purpose of controlling the real air conditioning device. This makes it possible to set values of the parameter on one to determine in a realistic way. In addition, a cost-effective optimization and a determination of the operational reliability of the control device can be carried out in a virtualized state. Ozcelik “Benchmarking thermoception in virtual environments to physical environments for understanding human-building interactions” teaches to perceived thermal comfort and satisfaction, perceived indoor air temperature, number and type of interactions as markers for the thermoceptive comparison of virtual and physical offices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights