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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: failure to properly reference actual elements in the provided figures and specification. For example, coolant circuit (10,100) does not appear in Applicants provided drawings and specification. The elements should be omitted as necessary. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 also recites “determining the simulated current mass flow of the coolant a computer executing a mathematical model.” Examiner suggests Applicants to clearly recite the computer performing the “determining” step as well as executing the claimed mathematical model. Appropriate correction is required.
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 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for determining a simulated current mass flow, in particular as a substitute for a current mass flow that cannot be measured in a field/production vehicle (i.e., process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“A method for determining a simulated current mass flow, in particular as a substitute for a current mass flow that cannot be measured in a field/production vehicle, in a coolant circuit for heating/cooling a component to be heated/cooled, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving pressure data, wherein the pressure data comprise a first pressure in the coolant circuit and a second pressure in the coolant circuit, wherein the first pressure is provided from a first pressure-measuring point with a first pressure sensor and the second pressure is provided from a second pressure-measuring point with a second pressure sensor, or the pressure data comprise a pressure differential in the coolant circuit, wherein the pressure differential between the first pressure-measuring point and the second pressure-measuring point is provided; wherein the first pressure-measuring point is upstream of the second pressure-measuring point and wherein the first pressure-measuring point and the second pressure-measuring point are in the same coolant path of the coolant circuit;
determining the simulated current mass flow of the coolant a computer executing a mathematical model configured to determine the current mass flow based on the pressure data.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The claimed “method” and “computer” are being interpreted to be equivalent in function to the human mind. For example, “receiving pressure data, wherein the pressure data comprise a first pressure in the coolant circuit and a second pressure in the coolant circuit, wherein the first pressure is provided from a first pressure-measuring point with a first pressure sensor and the second pressure is provided from a second pressure-measuring point with a second pressure sensor, or the pressure data comprise a pressure differential in the coolant circuit, wherein the pressure differential between the first pressure-measuring point and the second pressure-measuring point is provided; wherein the first pressure-measuring point is upstream of the second pressure-measuring point and wherein the first pressure-measuring point and the second pressure-measuring point are in the same coolant path of the coolant circuit” in the context of this claim encompasses that the operator may manually observe the first and second pressures and manually calculate and mass flow amount based on a mathematical formula known in the art. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows: “a method for determining a simulated current mass flow, in particular as a substitute for a current mass flow that cannot be measured in a field/production vehicle, in a coolant circuit for heating/cooling a component to be heated/cooled, the method comprising the steps of: determining the simulated current mass flow of the coolant a computer executing a mathematical model configured to determine the current mass flow based on the pressure data.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using a computer in determining the simulated current mass flow of the coolant a computer executing a mathematical model configured to determine the current mass flow based on the pressure data, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the computer in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing values through a mathematical formula) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
See for example MPEP 2106.04 (claims can recite a novel formula but they are still directed to math):
“For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”);”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (a math formula applied in an mechanical system is still just math).
The Court’s rationale for identifying these “mathematical concepts” as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199. In the past, the Supreme Court sometimes described mathematical concepts as laws of nature, and at other times described these concepts as judicial exceptions without specifying a particular type of exception. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 65, 175 USPQ2d at 674; Flook, 437 U.S. at 589, 198 USPQ2d at 197; Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94, 40 USPQ 199, 202 (1939) (‘‘[A] scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention[.]’’). More recent opinions of the Supreme Court, however, have affirmatively characterized mathematical relationships and formulas as abstract ideas. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (describing Flook as holding “that a mathematical formula for computing ‘alarm limits’ in a catalytic conversion process was also a patent-ineligible abstract idea.”); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (noting that the claimed “concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea,”).
Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include:
iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
MPEP 2106.05(h) (field of use, using a mathematical equation in a mechanical process, vs integration into a practical application, using outcome of mathematical equation to effect operation of a mechanical device):
“ In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula “in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons.” 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed.”
“In contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation “in a rubber molding process”. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add 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, 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, 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 is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer in determining the simulated current mass flow of the coolant a computer executing a mathematical model configured to determine the current mass flow based on the pressure data amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 - 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 - 11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 1 - 11 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 9 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0209288 A1) in view of Alcala Perez et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0249897 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simon teaches a method for determining a simulated current mass flow (measures mass flow ¶ 20), in particular as a substitute for a current mass flow that cannot be measured in a field/production vehicle, in a coolant circuit (measure coolant vapor ¶ 20) for heating/cooling a component to be heated/cooled (“…cooling a heat source using a refrigerant flow in a heat exchanger. According to some embodiments, a flow property of the refrigerant as it flows through a heat exchanger is measured and based on the measurement a flow distribution rate for the flow of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger is determined. A valve is operated for adjusting the flow rate of the refrigerant in the heat exchanger according to the determined flow distribution rate.” See Abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving pressure data, wherein the pressure data comprise a first pressure in the coolant circuit (first differential pressure at a first location upstream of the heat exchanger ¶ 20 and 87, FIG. 8) and a second pressure in the coolant circuit (second differential pressure ¶ 20), wherein the first pressure is provided from a first pressure-measuring point with a first pressure sensor and the second pressure is provided from a second pressure-measuring point with a second pressure sensor (first and second pressures measured at different points ¶ 20a and see also 87, 88, FIG. 8), or the pressure data comprise a pressure differential in the coolant circuit, wherein the pressure differential between the first pressure-measuring point and the second pressure-measuring point is provided (first and second pressure differentials ¶¶ 22, 32); wherein the first pressure-measuring point is upstream of the second pressure measuring point (first differential pressure at a first location upstream ¶ 20) and wherein the first pressure measuring point and the second pressure measuring point are in the same coolant path of the coolant circuit (second differential pressure downstream ¶ 20).
Simon is silent to determining the simulated current mass flow of the coolant a computer executing a mathematical model configured to determine the current mass flow based on the pressure data. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alcala Perez teaches a system for monitoring and controlling flow rate of a fluid through a valve, the system including a flow rate sensor configured to measure the flow rate of the fluid through the valve, and a controller in communication with the flow rate sensor (See Abstract). More specifically, the flow rate may be estimated based on pressure sensor data utilizing a mathematical function to output the measure flow rate (See Equation 1 ¶¶ 143-144).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Simon to determine the simulated current mass flow of the coolant a computer executing a mathematical model configured to determine the current mass flow based on the pressure data as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 2, Alcala Perez teaches the method, wherein the mathematical model (M) comprises an identified black box model (Mb) that is purely data-based (¶¶ 143-145).
It would have been obvious modify Simon to wherein the mathematical model (M) comprises an identified black box model (Mb) that is purely data-based as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 3, Alcala Perez teaches the method, wherein the black box model (Mb) comprises a polynomial, a spline, or a machine learning model (Polynomial function, See claim 4).
It would have been obvious modify Simon to wherein the black box model (Mb) comprises a polynomial as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 4, Alcala Perez teaches the method, wherein the mathematical model (M) comprises an identified gray box model (Mg) that models at least portions of a physical relationship between pressure, temperature, and mass flow (Pressure measurements, FIG. 6, temperature sensor and air flow ¶ 63).
It would have been obvious modify Simon to wherein the mathematical model (M) comprises an identified gray box model (Mg) that models at least portions of a physical relationship between pressure, temperature, and mass flow as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 5, Alcala Perez teaches the method, wherein the mathematical model (M) comprises a white box model (Mw) that purely analytically models the physical relationship between pressure, temperature, and/or heat flows and mass flow (Pressure differential, flow; FIGS. 6-8).
It would have been obvious modify Simon to wherein the mathematical model (M) comprises a white box model (Mw) that purely analytically models the physical relationship between pressure, temperature, and/or heat flows and mass flow as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 6, Alcala Perez teaches the method, wherein the mathematical model calibrates a characteristic map, wherein the simulated current mass flow (FIG. 20A simulated flow rate) is determined based on the characteristic map, wherein the characteristic map comprises a plurality of data points that associate the simulated current mass flow with the pressure data and/or temperature data (FIGS 20A-D).
It would have been obvious modify Simon to wherein the mathematical model calibrates a characteristic map, wherein the simulated current mass flow is determined based on the characteristic map, wherein the characteristic map comprises a plurality of data points that associate the simulated current mass flow with the pressure data and/or temperature data as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 9, Alcala Perez teaches the method, wherein the mathematical model was trained on a test bench or test vehicle, wherein the test bench or test vehicle comprises at least one flow rate sensor and/or mass flow sensor for determining the measured mass flow (Similarly, Benchmark system, FIG. 20 and ¶¶ 236-238).
It would have been obvious modify Simon to wherein the mathematical model was trained on a test bench or test vehicle, wherein the test bench or test vehicle comprises at least one flow rate sensor and/or mass flow sensor for determining the measured mass flow as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 10, Alcala Perez teaches the method, wherein the training of the mathematical model comprises receiving mass flow data, wherein for receiving the mass flow data, the mass flow ratios between the different coolant paths are additionally considered as mass flow ratio data depending on the position of the at least one flow rate sensor and/or mass flow sensor (Coldwater loop from building to chiller subplant and cooling tower subplant, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify Simon to wherein the training of the mathematical model comprises receiving mass flow data, wherein for receiving the mass flow data, the mass flow ratios between the different coolant paths are additionally considered as mass flow ratio data depending on the position of the at least one flow rate sensor and/or mass flow sensor as taught by Alcala Perez to allow for more reliable flow rate measurements (¶ 4).
Regarding claim 11, Simon discloses an apparatus for determining a simulated current mass flow, in particular as a substitute for a current mass flow that cannot be measured in a field/production vehicle, in a coolant circuit for cooling or heating a component to be heated/cooled, said apparatus being configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (FIG. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are 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 as well as overcoming current 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (Patent No.: US 10,271,457 B2). Liu teaches a heat dissipation controller is connected to a sensor and a water pump such that the controller correspondingly adjusts the water pump according to the current pressure difference and a preset pressure difference, to control a flow capacity of coolant flowing into a branch water pipe, until an absolute value of a difference between the current pressure difference and the preset pressure difference is less than or equal to a preset error amount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights