DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the following claim limitations which are not positively recited:
Claim 1 recites “candidate to be adjusted” in lines 7, 13-14, and 23 wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “adjusted”.
Claim 9 recites “candidate to be adjusted” in lines 6, 12-13, and 21 wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “adjusted”.
Claim 10 recites “candidate to be adjusted” in lines 6, 14, and 23 wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “adjusted”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) failure diagnosis apparatus”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “to select from among parameters of the air conditioner model, each parameter that forms an adjustment parameter group that consists of at least one parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated based on a condition according to a state of the air conditioner …”; “… a difference between operation data of the air conditioner indicating a result of executing the calibrated simulation which is the simulation of the operation of the air conditioner using the air conditioner model calibrated by adjusting a value of each parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group and actual operation data of the air conditioner corresponding to the calibrated simulation is equal to or greater than a threshold value …”; and “… selects from parameters other than a parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group among parameters of the air conditioner model, each parameter that forms an additional parameter group that consists of at least one parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated …”.
The limitation of “to select from among parameters of the air conditioner model, each parameter that forms an adjustment parameter group that consists of at least one parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated based on a condition according to a state of the air conditioner …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “to select from among parameters of the air conditioner model …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… each parameter that forms an adjustment parameter group that consists of at least one parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated based on a condition according to a state of the air conditioner”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… a difference between operation data of the air conditioner indicating a result of executing the calibrated simulation which is the simulation of the operation of the air conditioner using the air conditioner model calibrated by adjusting a value of each parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group and actual operation data of the air conditioner corresponding to the calibrated simulation is equal to or greater than a threshold value …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0337399 A1: pg. 1, par. [0086] and [0087]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… selects from parameters other than a parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group among parameters of the air conditioner model, each parameter that forms an additional parameter group that consists of at least one parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… selects from parameters other than a parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group among parameters of the air conditioner model …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… each parameter that forms an additional parameter group that consists of at least one parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “processing circuitry”; “when selecting each parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group, the processing circuitry refers to a parameter definition database that records at least one adjustment parameter which is a parameter corresponding to each condition according to the state of the air conditioner and which is a parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated …”; “… executing the calibrated simulation which is the simulation of the operation of the air conditioner using the air conditioner model calibrated by adjusting a value of each parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group and actual operation data of the air conditioner corresponding to the calibrated simulation …”; and “the processing circuitry … adds to the adjustment parameter group, each parameter that forms the additional parameter group.
The limitations of “processing circuitry”; “an air conditioner model”; “a simulation”; and “a parameter definition database” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “an air conditioner” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… refers to … records at least one adjustment parameter which is a parameter corresponding to each condition according to the state of the air conditioner and which is a parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… executing the calibrated simulation which is the simulation of the operation of the air conditioner using the air conditioner model calibrated by adjusting a value of each parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group and actual operation data of the air conditioner corresponding to the calibrated simulation …”, for use in the abstract idea of “difference”, is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… adds to the adjustment parameter group, each parameter that forms the additional parameter group” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “processing circuitry”; “an air conditioner model”; “a simulation”; and “a parameter definition database” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “an air conditioner” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… refers to … records at least one adjustment parameter which is a parameter corresponding to each condition according to the state of the air conditioner and which is a parameter whose value is a candidate to be adjusted when the air conditioner model is calibrated …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… executing the calibrated simulation which is the simulation of the operation of the air conditioner using the air conditioner model calibrated by adjusting a value of each parameter that forms the adjustment parameter group and actual operation data of the air conditioner corresponding to the calibrated simulation …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… adds to the adjustment parameter group, each parameter that forms the additional parameter group”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… when a value of any parameter that forms the additional parameter group has been adjusted, the processing circuitry adds to the parameter definition database, each parameter whose value has been adjusted and that forms the additional parameter group, as an adjustment parameter corresponding to a condition according to the calibrated simulation”.
The limitations of “the processing circuitry” and “a parameter definition database” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… adds …, each parameter whose value has been adjusted and that forms the additional parameter group, as an adjustment parameter corresponding to a condition according to the calibrated simulation” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the processing circuitry” and “a parameter definition database” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… adds …, each parameter whose value has been adjusted and that forms the additional parameter group, as an adjustment parameter corresponding to a condition according to the calibrated simulation”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the processing circuitry holds as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model calibrated in a case where the state of the air conditioner is a state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure, and the processing circuitry uses a parameter value indicated in the customer environment model, as an initial value when the air conditioner model is calibrated in the case where the state of the air conditioner is the state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure”.
The limitations of “the processing circuitry” and “… as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… holds as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model calibrated in a case where the state of the air conditioner is a state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… uses a parameter value indicated in the customer environment model, as an initial value when the air conditioner model is calibrated in the case where the state of the air conditioner is the state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the processing circuitry” and “… as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… holds as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model calibrated in a case where the state of the air conditioner is a state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… uses a parameter value indicated in the customer environment model, as an initial value when the air conditioner model is calibrated in the case where the state of the air conditioner is the state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the processing circuitry holds as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model calibrated in a case where the state of the air conditioner is a state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure, and the processing circuitry uses a parameter value indicated in the customer environment model, as an initial value when the air conditioner model is calibrated in the case where the state of the air conditioner is the state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure”.
The limitations of “the processing circuitry” and “… as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… holds as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model calibrated in a case where the state of the air conditioner is a state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… uses a parameter value indicated in the customer environment model, as an initial value when the air conditioner model is calibrated in the case where the state of the air conditioner is the state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the processing circuitry” and “… as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… holds as a customer environment model, an air conditioner model calibrated in a case where the state of the air conditioner is a state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… uses a parameter value indicated in the customer environment model, as an initial value when the air conditioner model is calibrated in the case where the state of the air conditioner is the state in which the air conditioner is assumed to have no failure”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”.
The limitation of “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… each parameter whose value has been set”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the processing circuitry sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”.
The limitation of “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the processing circuitry” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”.
The limitation of “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… each parameter whose value has been set”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the processing circuitry sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”.
The limitation of “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the processing circuitry” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”.
The limitation of “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… each parameter whose value has been set”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the processing circuitry sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”.
The limitation of “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the processing circuitry” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”.
The limitation of “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group, each parameter whose value has been set”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… excludes from the adjustment parameter group …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… each parameter whose value has been set”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the processing circuitry sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”.
The limitation of “the processing circuitry” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the processing circuitry” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… sets a value of at least one parameter of the air conditioner model”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 represents an equivalent non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to modeling systems/methods, simulation systems/methods, and HVAC systems/control methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0191106 A1 discloses a system and method for operating a remote plant simulation system
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0113482 A1 discloses a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning (HVAC) system for a building includes HVAC equipment, a controller, and a predictive modeling system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0335179 A1 discloses a system and a method for calibrating a model of thermal dynamics of thermal state in an environment of a building conditioned by an operation of a heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0397894 A1 discloses an abnormality detection system and an abnormality detection method capable of performing more stable abnormality detection.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0314031 A1 discloses a system and method for modeling, parameter estimation and adaptive control of building heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system in built environments with the aid of a digital computer
European Patent Publication No. EP 3 982 050 A1 discloses a management apparatus acquires various pieces of data from a device serving as a management target and stores various pieces of data as a device data model.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights