CTNF 18/728,325 CTNF 91279 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status The amendments to the claims filed on July 11, 2024 have been entered and are examined herein accordingly. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 10 recites “when the number of updating does not…” which the Examiner believes this should read as --when the number of updates does not…-- to coincide with the amendments previously made to the claims. Claim 1, line 32 should end with an --and--. The successive claim limitation “changing the group…” is the final method step to be performed under the heading of “when the number of updating does not reach the preset threshold”. The clause limitation following the “changing…” step is a method step that is part of the larger method (in other words, indented under “randomly generating…” and “determining whether…”). Therefore, the “and” should be included to properly delineated these methods . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 and 10 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. Regarding claims 1 and 10 , the following issues arise in both claims in the same, or substantially the same, wording: The claims were amended to modify from a plurality (the claims used to recite “at least one…”) to a simple singular (the claims now state “a…”). However, remainder portions of the claim and dependent claims recite “each…” which implies a plurality has been previously claimed. Therefore, there the scope of the claim is indefinite as to whether there are multiple or singular group(s) and combination(s). The claims recite “using [the] control parameters corresponding to the comprehensive score of the combination” which renders the claims indefinite (Examiner note: claim 10 recites “the” whereas claim 1 does not, but the same clarity arises in both claims hence they are both addressed here). The claims recite the method step of inputting “current control parameters” into the two prediction models, in addition to the inputs of “future weather condition value” and “current indoor condition value”. These claimed models then output a “combination” which is defined by “future energy consumption” and “future indoor condition”. The claim then never mentions control parameters again until the above indefinite limitation. It is unclear how the score is tied to any control parameters or what the scope of the control parameters are. The combination, which has the score tied to it, also has no claimed relationship to any control parameters. While the claims recite “chang[ing] the group of current control parameters”, it is unclear if these then become the control parameters nor how the parameters are tied to the score and combination. Therefore, especially in light of the rejection under 35 USC 101 presented below, the scope of these claims is indefinite. Regarding claim 10 , line 34 recites “the control parameters” which lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim previously recites “initial control parameters” but there is no other recitation of simple control parameters thus rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, in view of the previously presented 112(b) rejection of both claims 1 and 10, the scope of the term “control parameters” is unclear further rendering the metes and bounds of this claim indefinite. Claim 3 recites “a group of initial control parameters” which has already been positively recited in claim 1 which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Claim 3 recites “generating a group…in the next N hours” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is requiring generating multiple times of the “next” N hours or if the parameters are indicative of a plan that lasts for a certain amount of hours. The term “next” also has no relative base starting point, which further renders the claim indefinite. Claims 4 and 5 both recite “each combination” and “each group” which is indefinite as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above. A singular combination and singular group was previously recited whereas “each” implies a potential plurality which renders the claims indefinite. Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected as depending from a rejected indefinite claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1 and 10 are directed to a method (process) and an electronic device (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claims 1 and 10 recite the following abstract limitations (or substantially similar to), including “randomly generating a group of initial control parameters within a preset range to obtain a group of current control parameters; determining whether a number of updates has exceeded a preset threshold, wherein the number of updates represents a total number of times that the current control parameters have been changed; when the number of updating does not reach the preset threshold, entering the group of current control parameters, a current indoor condition value and a future weather condition value to an energy consumption prediction model and an indoor condition prediction model; receiving a combination comprising: future energy consumption generated by the energy consumption prediction model and a future indoor condition generated by the indoor prediction model; scoring the combination to obtain a consumption cost and indoor condition cost of the combination, wherein the indoor condition cost reflects a deviation of the future indoor condition from a target indoor condition; calculating a comprehensive score for each group according to the consumption cost and the indoor condition cost of the respective, wherein the comprehensive score reflects a comprehensive cost of the consumption cost and the indoor condition cost; changing the group of current control parameters, and incrementing the number of updates; and optimizing a set of air conditioning control parameters using control parameters corresponding to the comprehensive score of the combination when the number of updates reaches the preset threshold.”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). More specifically, other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper or recite mathematical correlations and analysis that can are mathematical concepts and/or still performed by a human with pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claims directed toward a mental process include claims to “‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 199 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory”. The functions of the processor and supporting system components (i.e. memory storing instructions) are additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Claim 1 currently does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, in combination, 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. If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above, the additional elements of the processor and supporting system components amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification notes that the associate processing is a generic computer (Page 9, second paragraph). Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Regarding claim 2 , the limitation of “changing the group…using an evolutionary multi-objective optimization…” is further directed to a method encompassing an abstract idea (mental process and/or mathematical concept), as described above in regards to claim 1. Therefore, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more. Regarding claim 3 , the limitation of “generating a group…” is further directed to a method encompassing an abstract idea (mental process and/or mathematical concept), as described above in regards to claim 1. Therefore, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more. Regarding claims 4 and 5 , the limitations of “calculating…” and “ranking…” are further directed to a method encompassing an abstract idea (mental process and/or mathematical concept), as described above in regards to claim 1. Therefore, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more. Regarding claims 6 and 7 , the recitation of the specific variables and data limitations are insufficient as “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas ( See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Similar to claim 1, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more. Regarding claim 8 , the limitation of “providing [data]…” is further directed to a method encompassing an abstract idea (mental process and/or mathematical concept), as described above in regards to claim 1. Therefore, this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mtibaa, Fatma et al NPL Reference “Context-aware Model Predictive Control framework for multi-zone buildings” (as cited by Applicant and a copy provided there by ) hereinafter referred to as Mtibaa . Regarding claims 1 and 10 , as best understood, Mtibaa discloses a method for optimizing control parameters and a corresponding electronic device with a processor and memory to execute the method ( Fig. 2, Fig.6, section 3.2: "we propose a new data-driven control framework allowing the HVAC operation in retail building to be optimized by determining an optimal control (on/off,) operation status of the sub-systems (see Fig. 2)." and section 5. i: "Based on CAM-LSTM models described in section 4,2 and the HVAC operational constraints, a general optimization problem with the three objectives, minimization of the total energy consumption, the peak power and the discomfort during occupancy time is formulated in (5). '') , the method comprising: randomly generating a group of initial control parameters within a preset range to obtain a group of current control parameters ( Fig.6, section 5.2: "GA starts with a random population including Ns initial individuals and this number is left constant for every generation.'' ); determining whether a number of updates has exceeded a preset threshold, wherein the number of updates represents a total number of times that the current control parameters have been changed ( Fig.6, section 5.2: "This whole process is executed in a loop until we reach the terminal condition which corresponds to the number of generations (i.e., 60 generations)" ); when the number of updating does not reach the preset threshold ( Fig.6, section 5.2: "This whole process is executed in a loop until we reach the terminal condition which corresponds to the number of generations (i.e., 60 generations)" ), entering the group of current control parameters, a current indoor condition value and a future weather condition value to an energy consumption prediction model and an indoor condition prediction model ( Fig.2, Fig.6, section 1: "past and future weather conditions, occupancy and controlled values are all included in our prediction model to improve the perdition accuracy and the control decision." and section 4. 1: 'The input of the model includes the future known variables of uncontrolled and controlled parameters.''. ); receiving a combination comprising: future energy consumption generated by the energy consumption prediction model and a future indoor condition generated by the indoor prediction model ( Fig.6, section 5. 1: "Based on CAM-LSTM models described in section 4.2 and the HVAC operational constraints, a general optimization problem with the three objectives, minimization of the total energy consumption, the peak power and the discomfort during occupancy time is formulated in (5). [. . .] The total energy consumption, the power peak and the discomfort are calculated using (6), (7) and (8) respectively. The discomfort is calculated according to the positive deviation ($/°C) between temperature setpoint in occupancy and unoccupancy time and the predicted temperature as defined in (8).” ); scoring the combination to obtain a consumption cost and indoor condition cost of the combination, wherein the indoor condition cost reflects a deviation of the future indoor condition from a target indoor condition ( Fig.6, section 5.2: "At the computation of each generation, each individual is given to the prediction model to predict the temperature T i,t+1:t+p, which is used by the optimizer MPG-GA to compute the combined cost''. ); calculating a comprehensive score for each group according to the consumption cost and the indoor condition cost of the respective, wherein the comprehensive score reflects a comprehensive cost of the consumption cost and the indoor condition cost ( Fig.6, section 5.2: ''At the computation of each generation. each individual is given to the prediction model to predict the temperature T i,t+1:t+p, which is used by the optimizer MPC--GA to compute the combined cost.” ); changing the group of current control parameters, and incrementing the number of updates ( Fig.6, section 5.2: "The selection of individuals for the next generation is evaluated by their fitness, which is computed by MPG-GA optimization function” ); and optimizing a set of air conditioning control parameters using control parameters corresponding to the comprehensive score of the combination when the number of updates reaches the preset threshold ( Fig.6, section 3.2: "The prediction data will feed the optimization module (section 5) in order to compute the optimal control sequence using MPCGA." and section 5.2: "GA is developed to solve the online optimization problem defined in section 5. 1 to search the optimal values of control parameters u1+1:t+p for all the zones, that minimize the overall cost within the prediction horizon Np." and Fig.6, section 5.2: "This whole process is executed in a loop until we reach the terminal condition which corresponds to the number of generations (i.e., 60 generations)" ). Regarding claims 2 and 3 , as best understood, Mtibaa further discloses changing the group of current control parameters using an evolutionary multi-objective optimization incorporating the consumption cost and the indoor condition cost of each combination and generating in the next N hours, less than or equal to 24 hours ( Figure 6 and section 5.1 ). Regarding claim 4 , as best understood, Mtibaa further discloses calculating the comprehensive score with present weights ( Section 6.3 ). Regarding claim 5 , as best understood, Mtibaa further discloses ranking in ascending order and receiving the top scores ( Section 6.1 and 6.4 - finding the optimal solution ). Regarding claims 6 and 7 , Mtibaa further discloses the claimed variables ( Section 5.1 ). Regarding claim 8 , Mtibaa further discloses utilizing historical data being provided ( Figure 2 and section 4.1 ). Examiner notes that the claim does not require any specific training step . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gaasch et al US Patent Application Publication 2016/0018835 and Johnson et al US Patent Application Publication 2021/0341164 teach similar smart control of HVAC systems with similar modeling and considerations . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA SCHIMPF whose telephone number is (571)270-7741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm 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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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. /TARA SCHIMPF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 2 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 3 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 4 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 5 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 6 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 7 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 8 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 9 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 10 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 18/728,325 Page 11 Art Unit: 3676
Prosecution Insights