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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12112179. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim limitations of reference patent anticipate the claim limitation of the instant application. Similarly independent claim 11 and dependent claim 2-10, 12-20 has been rejected and is mapped below.
Instant application
Reference patent 12112179
An apparatus for dynamic reconfiguration of process parameter, wherein the apparatus comprises: at least a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, wherein the memory contain instructions configuring the at least a processor to: detect a dependency factor as a function of a plurality of operational factors of a process; determine a primary factor and at least a secondary factor as a function of the dependency factor; modify the primary factor as a function of the at least at a secondary factor; and generate a modification set of the plurality of operational factors.
1. An apparatus for dynamic reconfiguration of process parameter, wherein the apparatus comprises: at least a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, wherein the memory contain instructions configuring the at least a processor to: detect a dependency factor as a function of a plurality of operational factors of a process; determine a primary factor and at least a secondary factor as a function of the dependency factor; modify the primary factor as a function of a specified modification protocol; eliminate the at least a secondary factor; and generate a modification set of the operational factors.
2-10
2-10
11+17
11
12-20
12-20
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein eliminating the at least a secondary factor further comprises”, and eliminating is not cited previously, and without reciting previously, stating further comprises, does not provide clarity. Applicant is requested to make proper change.
Or. 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.
Claim 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s)
detect a dependency factor as a function of a plurality of operational factors of a process;
determine a primary factor and at least a secondary factor as a function of the dependency factor;
modify the primary factor as a function of the at least at a secondary factor; and
generate a modification set of the plurality of operational factors.
These limitations of “detect a dependency factor as a function of a plurality of operational factors of a process; determine a primary factor and at least a secondary factor as a function of the dependency factor; modify the primary factor as a function of the at least at a secondary factor; and generate a modification set of the plurality of operational factors.” performed in the mind with the help of the data provided. Provided data, inserting in the function and modification to the equation can be performed in them in using pen and paper. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Detecting a factor or a value, determining a primary and secondary value in a function with dependency factor, modifying one of the factor and generating the modification based on their dependency on each other is high level of generality of that can be performed in the mind. Furthermore, generating modification using data or factors can be performed in mind using pen and paper by just placing different value for each factor in the equation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, therefore, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 11 and 17 recites an abstract idea. And dependent claims.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both the generating modification using instruction stored in memory. The processor in either step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of analyzing data and giving certain result. In addition, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The abstract idea, here, is not used to improve technology but to provide result of data analysis using data or factor replaced in the function.
Furthermore, claim recites data collection method which is insignificant extra solution of abstract idea. The claim recites: at least a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, wherein the memory contain instructions configuring the at least a processor- processing by a processor abstract ideas is insignificant extra solution because processor is just a tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, data gathered from devices is mere data collecting method with insignificant activity. Data used or collecting methods are insignificant to overcome abstract idea [Mpep: 2106.05(g) provides evidenced 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis). Furthermore, See MPEP 2106.05(d): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by using conventional data processing tool i.e. processor when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea and ineligible.
Similarly claim 11 comprises insignificant extra solution for the use data for determination of the certain result and generating another set of data is a mental process.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 comprises insignificant extra solution for the use data for determination of the certain result and generating another set of data is a mental process and are paten ineligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6,9-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by FEDECOSTANTE [20230383976]
As to claim 1,
FEDECOSTANTE [20230383976] teaches An apparatus for dynamic reconfiguration of process parameter, wherein the apparatus comprises:
at least a processor[0121: “processor” ]; and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, wherein the memory contain instructions configuring the at least a processor to [0121: “the processor compares the climate conditioning energy E.sub.COND between two scenarios with different values both of the outdoor environmental variables and the comfort level and is able to decouple the energy variation caused by the various outdoor environmental variables from that caused by the different comfort levels”]:
detect a dependency factor as a function of a plurality of operational factors of a process [ 0115: “The characteristic parameter k is not necessarily a single value for each building, if several temperature sensors inside a building are present it is possible to calculate a characteristic parameter k associated with each indoor temperature sensor--The choice of using a greater number of characteristic parameters k may be combined with the one or more other characteristics described in optional embodiments ” and 0096: “The efficiency eff of the conditioning may be considered as constant and known for heating systems such as gas boilers or electrical systems, while for heat pump systems, it is advisable to calculate the efficiency as a continuous or piecewise variable according to the temperature difference between hot source and cold source ” and 103 “addition to the indoor temperature, also humidity or ventilation, this may be useful for a cooling system that also regulates the humidity ”-dependency factor is equivalent to K value, temperature measured by sensor is equivalent operational factor and humidity and other factor are taken into consideration, and also see 0086 ];
determine a primary factor and at least a secondary factor as a function of the dependency factor [0116: “Preferably phases 1 and 2 comprise the same number of parameters k” and 0134: “The processor may provide the user with an efficiency score of the building which is represented by the characteristic parameter k. The processor may repeat the calculation of the characteristic parameter k over time, any differences may be attributed to changes in the efficiency of the conditioning system ” and 00118: “method described enables to estimate the energy required for the conditioning E.sub.COND as a function of outdoor temperature values T.sub.ext and the comfort level; by way of a non-limiting example the outdoor temperature T.sub.ext may be taken as the value provided by weather forecasts and the comfort level associated with the average indoor temperature T.sub.int set. ”- indoor temperature is a primary factor and doutdoor temperature is secondary factor and efficiency is represented by the k parameter which is dependent on indoor and outdoor temperature and more.];
modify the primary factor as a function of the at least at a secondary factor [ 0133; “the processor is configured to identify a comfort level setting which respects a maximum consumption of air conditioning energy for a given scenario of outdoor environmental variables. ”- indoor temperature is identified or modified based on outdoor temperature and 00118: “method described enables to estimate the energy required for the conditioning E.sub.COND as a function of outdoor temperature values T.sub.ext and the comfort level; by way of a non-limiting example the outdoor temperature T.sub.ext may be taken as the value provided by weather forecasts and the comfort level associated with the average indoor temperature T.sub.int set. ” and 0103: “the comfort level is associated with a vector of indoor environmental variables comprising, in addition to the indoor temperature, also humidity or ventilation, this may be useful for a cooling system that also regulates the humidity. ” – indoor temperature is modified as a comfort level ]; and
generate a modification set of the plurality of operational factors [ [ 0133; “the processor is configured to identify a comfort level setting which respects a maximum consumption of air conditioning energy for a given scenario of outdoor environmental variables. ” – indoor temperature set is identified or generated for each outdoor environmental variable which includes temperature and 0128: “The processor may compare pairs of energy values between which only one among the outdoor environmental variables and comfort level varies, thus obtaining the influence on the energy attributable to each variable. [0129] “Ea−Ec” indicates the component of energy variation from the first compared to the second scenario caused by the outdoor environmental variables (weather). [0130] “Ea−Ed” indicates the variation component from the first of energy with respect to the second scenario caused by the different comfort level (user setting). [0131] “Eb−Ec” indicates how the consumption could have changed in the second scenario if the comfort level of the first scenario had been used.”].
As to claim 2,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches detecting the dependency factor comprises analyzing statistical dependencies[008: “the information for the user comprises the set temperatures, the consumption and the variations in consumption between a first reference time interval and a second time interval. When a variation is detected, the system analyses the parameters to identify a possible cause; in particular, the cause may be attributed to the weather conditions, the number of occupants in the building, the hourly setting of the temperatures or manual variations made by the user. ”].
As to claim 3,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches the primary factor comprises at least one secondary factor as a function of an operation value [0046: “The comfort level is a calculated value representative of the indoor temperature reached in the time intervals when the conditioning has been active and depends both on the indoor temperature and on the duration of such conditioning time intervals;” – time interval is equivalent to operation value].
As to claim 4,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches modification set is configured to calibrate the primary factor operation parameters [0133; “the processor is configured to identify a comfort level setting which respects a maximum consumption of air conditioning energy for a given scenario of outdoor environmental variables. ”- comfort level represents indoor temperature setting is calibrated/modified based on outdoor temperature].
As to claim 5,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches the apparatus is further configured to calculate a upper and lower bound estimates as a function of the plurality of operational factors [0102: “, therefore according to some embodiments the comfort level is a weighted average of the indoor temperature T.sub.int set in the conditioning time intervals. Alternatively, a lower limit and an upper limit may be imposed on the indoor temperature values used to obtain the comfort level; the values beyond this limit are discarded or set equal to the limit. A lower limit may be 16° C., an upper limit may be for example 26° C. ”].
As to claim 6,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches modifying the primary factor further comprises substituting the at least a operational factor with an alternative variable [017: “each reference to a characteristic parameter k may be replaced with several values of k, calculated for different measurements of the indoor temperature T.sub.int. ”].
As to claim 8,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches the modification set further comprises reflecting recalibrated primary factor and the streamlined secondary factors [0133; “the processor is configured to identify a comfort level setting which respects a maximum consumption of air conditioning energy for a given scenario of outdoor environmental variables. ”]
As to claim 9,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches the apparatus is further configured to reevaluate the optimization process as a function of feedback data derived from the modification set [0084: “Phase 1 adopts a supervised training method also called “supervised machine learning”. The computer system that implements this step of the method may be a process dedicated to the building or may be provided on the cloud. For the optimization it is possible to use a gradient boosting algorithm, or other known algorithms.”- when data is used for the optimization, feedback is used].
As to claim 10,
FEDECOSTANTE teaches the apparatus is further configured to apply an algorithmic assessment to the plurality of operational factors [0084: “Phase 1 adopts a supervised training method also called “supervised machine learning”. The computer system that implements this step of the method may be a process dedicated to the building or may be provided on the cloud. For the optimization it is possible to use a gradient boosting algorithm, or other known algorithms.”].
As to
Claim 11-16, FEDECOSTANTE anticipates claim limitations according to reasoning set forth in claim 1-6 supra.
As to
Claim 18-20, FEDECOSTANTE anticipates claim limitations according to reasoning set forth in claim 8-10 supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHAB R PANDEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00(ET).
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571) 270-1640. 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.
/KESHAB R PANDEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights