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 .
Drawings
Objections withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Rejections withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
1, 9, 14. A cooling system/method/program for improving operation of a spot cooler by predicting an operating condition, comprising: one or more processors; a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors and storing: a control module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
predict, using a model, the operating condition of the spot cooler according to the device data that includes at least a geographic location, weather information, and historical usage information, the operating condition indicating when a tank level of a reservoir in the spot cooler will reach full; and
provide the operating condition as at least an alert to prevent the reservoir from reaching full and the spot cooler shutting down.
2. The cooling system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to acquire the device data include instructions to acquire additional data as part of the device data from an additional source, wherein the additional data includes one or more of weather information, historical usage information, traffic volume, and population density information, and
wherein the additional source is a remote source of the additional data.
3. The cooling system of claim 1, wherein instructions to acquire the device data from the spot cooler include instructions to receive a communication from the spot cooler that is located remotely, the device data including one or more of a GPS location, a fan rotation speed, a fan indicated duty, total hours on, a fan speed, refrigerant piping temperature, room temperature, a cooling set temperature, a total time of cooling operation, a humidity, and a tank full status.
4. The cooling system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to predict the operating condition include instructions to predict whether a tank level of a reservoir in the spot cooler has reached a threshold value that is less than full.
6. The cooling system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to predict the operating condition include instructions to determine a load on the spot cooler according to a population density of a location of the spot cooler, and
wherein the instructions to predict the operating condition include instructions to determine whether the spot cooler exhibits irregular usage according to a variance in times between a tank level indicating full.
7. The cooling system of claim 1, further comprising:
instructions to train the model using training data that includes the device data and a supervising signal indicating a tank level of a reservoir of the spot cooler.
8. The cooling system of claim 1, wherein the spot cooler is a portable air-cooling device.
10. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions to acquire the device data include instructions to acquire additional data as part of the device data from an additional source, wherein the additional data includes one or more of weather information, historical usage information, traffic volume, and population density information, and
wherein the additional source is a remote source of the additional data.
11. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein instructions to acquire the device data from the spot cooler include instructions to receive a communication from the spot cooler that is located remotely, the device data including one or more of a GPS location, a fan rotation speed, a fan indicated duty, total hours on, a fan speed, refrigerant piping temperature, room temperature, a cooling set temperature, a total time of cooling operation, a humidity, and a tank full status.
12. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions to predict the operating condition include instructions to predict whether a tank level of a reservoir in the spot cooler has reached a threshold value that is less than full.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein acquiring the device data includes acquiring additional data as part of the device data from an additional source, wherein the additional data includes one or more of weather information, historical usage information, traffic volume, and population density information, and
wherein the additional source is a remote source of the additional data.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein acquiring the device data from the spot cooler includes receiving a communication from the spot cooler that is located remotely, the device data including one or more of a GPS location, a fan rotation speed, a fan indicated duty, total hours on, a fan speed, refrigerant piping temperature, room temperature, a cooling set temperature, a total time of cooling operation, a humidity, and a tank full status.
17. The method of claim 14, wherein predicting the operating condition includes predicting whether a tank level of a reservoir in the spot cooler has reached a threshold value that is less than full.
19. The method of claim 14, wherein predicting the operating condition includes determining a load on the spot cooler according to a population density of a location of the spot cooler, and
wherein predicting the operating condition includes determining whether the spot cooler exhibits irregular usage according to a variance in times between a tank level indicating full.
20. The method of claim 14, further comprising: training the model using training data that includes the device data and a supervising signal indicating a tank level of a reservoir of the spot cooler.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, by a processor/program, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor/program language, acquiring, predicting and providing, in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about and/or making manual calculations for acquiring, predicting and providing. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – processor/program. The processor/program is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of processor/program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 13, 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6,19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0068678 to Choi teaches
1, 9, 14. A cooling system/method/program for improving operation of a spot cooler by predicting an operating condition, comprising: one or more processors; a memory communicably coupled to the one or more processors and storing: a control module including instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to (paragraph 59-60, 253-283):
acquire, from at least the spot cooler, device data about operation of the spot cooler (paragraph 121-124, 168-176, 232-234, 272-283);
predict the operating condition of the spot cooler according to the device data using a model (paragraph 121-124, 168-176, 232-234, 272-283); and
provide the operating condition (paragraph 121-124, 168-176, 232-234, 272-283).
Choi fails to disclose all the claimed features of applicant’s instant invention, specifically including:
5,13,18, The cooling system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to provide the operating condition include instructions to adjust settings of the spot cooler to extend a time of operation by avoiding filling the reservoir.
6, 19. The cooling system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to predict the operating condition include instructions to determine a load on the spot cooler according to a population density of a location of the spot cooler, and
wherein the instructions to predict the operating condition include instructions to determine whether the spot cooler exhibits irregular usage according to a variance in times between a tank level indicating full.
It is for these reasons that applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the providing step integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. The examiner submits that the providing step, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. An alert is broad in view of the specification and a POSITA, and providing a condition as an alert, in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about and/or making manual calculations for providing a condition as an alert.
Applicant argues that using a model is not a mental process. The examiner disagrees. The examiner submits that using a model, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, by a processor/program, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor/program language, predicting, using a model, in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about and/or making manual calculations for predicting using a model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a computational model (as described in the specification at least at paragraphs [0036]-[0041] and the training process of claim 7) that receives multi-dimensional, real-world input data-including geographic location, weather information, and historical usage information-and generates a forward-looking prediction of the specific future time at which the tank level will reach full. Such a prediction, based on heterogeneous sensor and external data streams and trained on supervising signals of actual tank levels, cannot practically be performed in the human mind”; “a particular machine-learning process that produces a trained model capable of the accurate, forward-looking tank-level predictions”; “proactive management of condensate accumulation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights