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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Film Evaluation System For Evaluating Health State Of Film Including An Estimation Unit For Obtaining Diffusion Rate And Flow Resistance By Comparing Flux Observation Value And Flux Prediction Value
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a film evaluation system comprising a measurement unit, wherein the measurement unit obtains an initial state parameter set corresponding to a film; an observation unit connected to the measurement unit, wherein the observation unit obtains a flux observation value according to the initial state parameter set; an adaptive algorithm unit connected to the observation unit, wherein the adaptive algorithm unit obtains a flux prediction value according to the initial state parameter set; an estimation unit connected to the adaptive algorithm unit, wherein the estimation unit obtains a diffusion rate and a flow resistance by comparing the flux observation value and the flux prediction value; and a health state calculation unit connected to the estimation unit, wherein the health state calculation unit obtains a health state of the film according to the diffusion rate and the flow resistance. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 2 recites wherein the adaptive algorithm unit further updates the flux prediction value based on the diffusion rate and the flow resistance, and the estimation unit further updates the diffusion rate and the flow resistance by the updated flux prediction value. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 3 recites wherein the adaptive algorithm unit stores a fouling model, and the adaptive algorithm unit obtains the flux prediction value based on the fouling model. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 4 recites wherein the estimation unit compares the flux observation value and the flux prediction value to obtain a flux error value, and the estimation unit obtains the diffusion rate and the flow resistance based on the flux error value. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 5 recites wherein the estimation unit further stores a control differential equation, and the estimation unit obtains a first parameter and a second parameter based on the control differential equation and according to the flux error value. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 6 recites wherein the estimation unit comprises a diffusion rate estimation unit and a flow resistance estimation unit, the diffusion rate estimation unit obtains the diffusion rate according to the first parameter, and the flow resistance estimation unit obtains the flow resistance according to the second parameter. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 7 recites wherein the health state calculation unit stores a health state equation, and the health state calculation unit obtains the health state of the film based on the health state equation and according to the diffusion rate and the flow resistance. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 8 recites an energy consumption optimization unit connected to the observation unit, wherein the energy consumption optimization unit obtains an operating pressure based on the flux observation value. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 9 recites wherein the energy consumption optimization unit transmits the operating pressure to the estimation unit, and the estimation unit obtains the diffusion rate and the flow resistance according to the flux observation value, the flux prediction value, and the operating pressure. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 10 recites wherein the energy consumption optimization unit obtains a recovery rate based on the flux observation value. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 11 recites wherein the initial state parameter set comprises a permeate value related to a permeate that passes through the film and a retentate value related to a retentate that does not pass through the film. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 12 recites a film evaluation method comprising obtaining an initial state parameter set corresponding to a film; obtain a flux observation value according to the initial state parameter set; obtain a flux prediction value according to the initial state parameter set; comparing the flux observation value and the flux prediction value to obtain a diffusion rate and a flow resistance; and obtaining a healthy state of the film according to the diffusion rate and the flow resistance. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 13 recites updating the flux prediction value according to the diffusion rate and the flow resistance; and updating the diffusion rate and the flow resistance according to the updated flux prediction value. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Thus claims 1-13 are grouped as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as “the film” do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract ideas because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” (See MPEP 2016.05(f)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood in the Examiner’s opinion in regards to claim 1, Wang et al (CN 106469248 A) teaches an estimation system of a RO membrane comprising a signal collector, a comparator, a verification module, a replacing module and a performance estimation module to improve the estimation precision of the RO membrane (Paragraph 0011).
However, Wang et al does not teach the film evaluation system further comprising an estimation unit obtaining a diffusion rate and a flow resistance by comparing a flux observation value and a flux prediction value, and a health state calculation unit is connected to the estimation unit wherein the health state calculation unit obtains a health state of the film according to the diffusion rate and the flow resistance where the stated limitations are not suggested in addition to not being anticipated or taught in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1 upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The remaining claims are allowed due to their dependency.
As best understood in the Examiner’s opinion in regards to claim 12, Wang et al (CN 106469248 A) teaches an estimation system of a RO membrane comprising a signal collector, a comparator, a verification module, a replacing module and a performance estimation module to improve the estimation precision of the RO membrane (Paragraph 0011).
However, Wang et al does not teach the film evaluation system further comprising the method steps of comparing the flux observation value and the flux prediction value to obtain a diffusion rate and a flow resistance and obtaining a healthy state of the film according to the diffusion rate and the flow resistance where the stated limitations are not suggested in addition to not being anticipated or taught in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 12 upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The remaining claim is allowed due to its dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE L JENKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/J.L.J/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights