DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 10/19/2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first modeling unit”, “a second modeling unit” in claim 6 and “a conversion sub-unit” and a “calculation sub-unit” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof; however there is no corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perfor, , m the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre, -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, lines 3-5 recite “… modeling carbon emission of each single-input-single-output conversion device and each single-input-multi-output conversion device…” Use of the word “each” implies that multiple “single-input-single-output conversion device” and multiple “single-input-multi-output conversion device” have been recited previously, however they were not. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 6 and 11 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining a matrix expression of carbon emission flow based on the single-period steady- state carbon emission flow model of the energy conversion device”. The matrix expression appears to be a “standalone limitation” and has no connection to the remainder of the claim language. It is unclear what the purpose is of obtaining the matrix expression and there appears to be a gap between steps. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 6 and 11 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 11-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 19 contain variables in small, blurry text which are extremely difficult to discern. For example, claim 2 recites a variable Q which appears to be raised to a power but it is unclear what the number is. A fresh claim set with clear text is required.
Claim 4 recites “a corresponding multiplication (Hadamard product) of two vector elements”. It is unclear why this term is present within parentheses and if it is a necessary part of the claim. Claims 9, 14 and 19 are rejected for similar reasoning. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “The method according to claim 11” however claim 11 is directed towards an “electronic device”. Appropriate correction is required.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a first modeling unit”, “a second modeling unit” in claim 6 and “a conversion sub-unit” and a “calculation sub-unit” in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof; however there is no corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions.
Claims 6-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1, 6 and 11, claim a method, an apparatus and a device. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of process and a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A carbon emission flow calculation method for a regional integrated energy system, the method comprising:
establishing a single-period steady-state carbon emission flow model of an energy conversion device by modeling carbon emission of each single-input-single-output conversion device and each single-input-multi-output conversion device (mathematical concepts - Mathematical Formulas or Equations -MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(B)(iiii));
obtaining a matrix expression of carbon emission flow based on the single-period steady- state carbon emission flow model of the energy conversion device and establishing a single- period steady-state carbon emission flow model of the regional integrated energy system (mathematical concepts - Mathematical Formulas or Equations -MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(B)(iiii));
and establishing a standardized multi-period carbon emission flow model of the regional integrated energy system by combining a multi-period coupled steady-state carbon emission flow model of energy storage devices and the single-period steady-state carbon emission flow model of the regional integrated energy system, to obtain actual carbon emission flow of the regional integrated energy system by solving the standardized multi-period carbon emission flow model (mathematical concepts - Mathematical Formulas or Equations -MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(B)(iiii)).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “obtaining a matrix expression of carbon emission flow based on the single-period steady- state carbon emission flow model of the energy conversion device” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.0S(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “obtaining a matrix expression of carbon emission flow based on the single-period steady- state carbon emission flow model of the energy conversion device” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 6 and 11 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)). In particular, the claims recite the additional limitations: “electronic device”, “memory”, “processor”, “computer program”, “computer-readable storage medium”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards generic computing components.
Claims 16-20 recite a “computer-readable storage medium” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. While Applicant’s specification may or may not provide examples of a medium as claimed, such examples do not explicitly define the term.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, particularly when the specification is silent of an explicit definition. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim is not statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1496 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[a] signal with embedded supplemental data” require some carrier of information, since “signal” implies conveyance of information, which in turn requires physical carrier, such as electromagnetic wave, on which information is embedded; however, claims do not specify what carrier element is to be used, since limitations address signal's informational content alone, and therefore any tangible means of information carriage, such as electrical signals, modulated electronic waves, or pulses in fiber optic cable, will suffice for all claims at issue.) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, p.2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 in this situation, the USPTO suggest the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
According to the current guidance, a proper medium that qualifies as a patent eligible process under 35 USC 101 must be non- transitory storage medium that is also a recording medium and should not include propagation media. Because the instant claims include medium that could involve propagation media, the claims are being held as non-statutory under 35 USC 101. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 are overcome.
The closest prior art of record, Cheng, teaches an analytical model for carbon emission flow(CEF) in multiple energy systems. Explicit CEF models for different energy networks, including power network, gas network and heating network, are established. A CEF model for an energy hub is further formulated to analyze the flow of carbon emission across different energy systems during the conversion process. However, this reference and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claims 1, 6 and 11)
“establishing a single-period steady-state carbon emission flow model of an energy conversion device by modeling carbon emission of each single-input-single-output conversion device and each single-input-multi-output conversion device;
obtaining a matrix expression of carbon emission flow based on the single-period steady- state carbon emission flow model of the energy conversion device and establishing a single- period steady-state carbon emission flow model of the regional integrated energy system; and
establishing a standardized multi-period carbon emission flow model of the regional integrated energy system by combining a multi-period coupled steady-state carbon emission flow model of energy storage devices and the single-period steady-state carbon emission flow model of the regional integrated energy system, to obtain actual carbon emission flow of the regional integrated energy system by solving the standardized multi-period carbon emission flow model”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Huang, Wujing, et al. "Multienergy networks analytics: Standardized modeling, optimization, and low carbon analysis." Proceedings of the IEEE 108.9 (2020): 1411-1436. (Year: 2020).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights