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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
I. Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1A, including claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-13 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3, 5 and 14 were non-elected.
2. There was no new set of claims filed with said reply with the proper status identifier such as Original, Withdrawn, Canceled, etc. Therefore, the status of claims is improper. Consequently, appropriate correction is required.
Title Objection
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Furthermore, the title of the instant application is the same as its parent Patent No.: 11,997,764 (hereinafter mentioned as the “Patent”).
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761(CCPA1982); in re Vogei, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644(CCPA1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
5. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (6+7) and 8, respectively, of the Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the claims (6+7) and 8 of the Patent encompass the limitations of the claims 1 and 2 in the instant application. It is noted that those claims, despite a slight difference in wording, are so close in content that they both cover the same thing.
6. This is a non-provisionally and nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
7. The next tables are presented for the purpose of a comparison between the claims on the application and the Patent.
Instant Application
Patent
Claim 1 - A method for determining a relationship between a resistance of a piece of heat trace RT and a temperature of the piece of heat trace TT, the method comprising the step of using a relationship
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where μ and β are constants depending on a type of heat trace, and ℓ is a length of the piece of heat trace.
Claim 7 - The method of claim 6,
... a temperature of the piece of heat trace TT may be assessed in the stable operating period using the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where RT is the measured resistance of the piece of heat trace, μ and β are constants depending on a type of heat trace, ℓ is a length of the piece of heat trace ...
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.
8. Claim 1, 2, 4, and 6-13 is 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.
9. Claim 1 is directed to “determining a relationship between a resistance of a piece of heat trace RT and a temperature of the piece of heat trace TT, the method comprising the step of using a relationship
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where μ and β are constants depending on a type of heat trace, and ℓ is a length of the piece of heat trace”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method ... a piece of heat trace ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
9.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
9.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “determining a relationship between a resistance of a piece of heat trace RT and a temperature of the piece of heat trace TT, the method comprising the step of using a relationship
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where μ and β are constants depending on a type of heat trace, and ℓ is a length of the piece of heat trace”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
9.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to calibration of control system to enable resistance-based control of a heat tracing circuit, freeze protection, snow melting, de-icing, process and pipeline temperature maintenance, floor heating, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
9.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method ... a piece of heat trace ...”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below and prior art made of record below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
10. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “where μ and β for a given piece of heat trace are determined using a linear fit on measured values of RT and TT during a stabilized period of heating, where the stabilized period of heating follows an inrush period of heating”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
11. Claim 4 is directed to “... identify abnormal operation indicative of fault conditions... • using a system model to determine an expected operating range for the heat tracing system; and noting deviations from the expected operating range as fault conditions”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method for monitoring a heat tracing system ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 4 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
11.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 4 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
11.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 4 recites: “... identify abnormal operation indicative of fault conditions... • using a system model to determine an expected operating range for the heat tracing system; and noting deviations from the expected operating range as fault conditions”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
11.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 4 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to calibration of control system to enable resistance-based control of a heat tracing circuit, freeze protection, snow melting, de-icing, process and pipeline temperature maintenance, floor heating, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
11.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 4 recites the additional element(s) “A method for monitoring a heat tracing system ...”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below and prior art made of record below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
12. Claim 6 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “where a system model is used to establish a limit on a rate of change of temperature, current, resistance, or temperature as measured by resistance signal; and calculated temperature changes that occur at a faster rate than the rate of change established are noted as a fault condition”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 7 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “where external information from sensors, weather data, or other systems, is used to increase an accuracy of the expected operating range as determined by the system model”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 8 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “where historical system data is used to establish a system model, where current operation is compared to successful historical operation for a similar set of operating conditions”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “where the heat tracing system is set to operate on a periodic basis to establish data points used to improve the system model”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
16. Claim 10 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “where the heat tracing system operates to collect data based on information from the heat tracing system, wherein the heat tracing system collects data on conditions not yet seen by the heat tracing system, wherein the heat tracing system operates at a given temperature to establish a baseline operating condition for the given temperature”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 11 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “where historical system data is used to improve an accuracy of the system model”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
18. Claim 12 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “where a known rate of heat trace aging is used to account for changes in operation of the heat trace system over time or is used to determine when a piece of heat trace has reached an end of useful life”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
19. Claim 13 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “where the heat tracing system is set to operate automatically on a periodic basis to determine whether the heat tracing system is operating within an acceptable range”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Examiner’s Note
20. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
21. Claim(s) 1 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAMBINO et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0191084 hereinafter mentioned “Gambino”) in view of Schneider et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0163859 hereinafter mentioned as “Schneider”).
As per claim 1, Gambino discloses:
A method for determining a relationship between a resistance of a piece of heat trace RT
and a temperature of the piece of heat trace TT (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see [0081]-[0091]), the method comprising the step of using a relationship (see [0081]-[0082]).
Gambino does not explicitly that said relationship is
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where μ and β are constants depending on a type of heat trace, and ℓ is a length of the piece of heat trace.
However, Schneider further discloses
A method for determining a temperature of the piece of heat trace TT (Fig. 6, the temperature of the heater as a function of distance along the length of the heater. Also see [0084]-[0085] and [0091]);
a type of heat trace (see [0084] and [0027]. The type of the heater of Schneider may be chosen to suit the type of heating assembly), and a length of the piece of heat trace (see [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to considering the “type of heat trace and length of the piece of heat trace” disclosed by Schneider into Gambino, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing an ideal temperature profile (Schneider, Paragraph [0091]), while also reducing the size of the heater assembly and to ensure the heater assembly is as robust (Schneider, Paragraph [0023]).
The combination of Gambino and Schneider does not explicitly that said relationship is
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the combination of Gambino and Schneider shows all measurements in which one ordinary skilled in the art could have developed the claimed relationship in order to obtain a more accurate temperature profile of the heat trace and improve its resistance model. Therefore, the formula has not sufficient patentable weight.
Furthermore, Schneider states that “The exemplary embodiments described above illustrate but are not limiting. In view of the above discussed exemplary embodiments, other embodiments consistent with the above exemplary embodiments will now be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art” (Schneider, Paragraph [0092]).
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Matsumoto (Patent No.: US 6,643,430) teaches “A temperature control device for controlling temperature variable devices disposed near a grating of a variable dispersion equalizer including an optical waveguide having the grating. The temperature variable devices control temperatures independently of each other. The temperature control device includes a controller for controlling the temperature variable units, and a storage device which stores temperature control patterns including combinations of control signals for the respective temperature variable units” (Abstract).
b) Freter (Pub. No.: US 2011/0080159) teaches “method for testing the operation of an electric heating element which is used for heating activated carbon of an activated carbon filter and/or air which is guided through the activated carbon for the regeneration thereof. The heating element has a PTC-characteristic (positive temperature coefficient characteristic). The strength of a current flow through the heating element in a heating phase selected for the operational testing is measured at a point in time or over a time period and is used for the operational testing” (Abstract).
c) Fathi (Pub. No.: US 2007/0284034) teaches “Conductive traces and patterns of same are used to bond components together via electromagnetic radiation. Each conductive trace is configured to resonate and heat up when irradiated with electromagnetic radiation, such as microwave energy and/or RF energy, having a wavelength that is about 2.3 times the length of the conductive trace. The conductive traces may be arranged in a pattern to uniformly heat a target area of a substrate or other component to a selected temperature when irradiated with electromagnetic radiation” (Abstract).
d) Biller (Pub. No.: US 2011/0192832) teaches “A temperature monitoring system for a flexible, thin-film graphite heater element includes a temperature sensing component that uses the heater element to sense temperature. The temperature sensing component includes a current sensor and a voltmeter circuit. A temperature control component is associated with the heater element. The temperature control component receives at least one set point value associated with the heater and controls the temperature of the heater element based on the at least one set point value” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858