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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in reply to the application filed on 25 October 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 18/461,270 filed 09/05/2023, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being currently rejected as below but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action. The prior art of record most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention includes U.S. Publication No. 20210164727 to Gong et. al. ("Gong "), U.S. Publication No. 20190166860 to Sun et. al. ("Sun "), U.S. Publication No. 20140343741 to Clarke ("Clarke ") and Optimal Operation of Climate Control Systems of Produce Storage Facilities in Smart Grids to Bozchalui et. al. ("Bozchalui").
Gong teaches an overcooled meat fresh-preservation control method, a controller and a refrigerator are provided. The control method comprises: S1 (101), acquiring a current temperature of meat food in a compartment of a refrigerator in real time; S2 (102), judging whether the current temperature of the meat food is greater than or equal to a first temperature threshold to, and if yes, performing step S3 (103); S3 (103), controlling the compartment to perform a cooling operation; S4 (104), judging whether the meat food has been cooled down to a phase transformation point temperature tl during the cooling operation, and if yes, performing step S5 (105), the phase transformation point temperature tl being the temperature of a critical point at which the phase transformation of the meat food occurs; S5 (105), starting timing once the temperature has been cooled down to the phase transformation point temperature tl, and performing step S6 (106) after the timing reaches a first preset time period; and S6 (106), controlling the compartment to perform a low-temperature stable operation according to a third target temperature T3, the third target temperature T3 being a freezing point temperature of the meat food. The overcooled meat fresh-preservation control method provided by the present disclosure may prolong the fresh-preservation period as much as possible while ensuring that the meat food is not frozen.
Sun teaches a multi-temperature-region ice-temperature fresh keeping storehouse and a fresh keeping method for bergamot pears that includes a precooling region, a feeding and discharging channel, a cooling region, an ice temperature detection device, a grading device, a conveyer belt control device, an automatic storage device, and a temperature rise and fall buffering channel. The cooling region includes four freezers, with temperatures ranging from 0° C.-−3° C. The four freezers are connected level by level according to a temperature reduction rule. The present disclosure implements multi-temperature-region graded storage of bergamot pears according to the value of an ice point temperature of the bergamot pears, so that they are always stored close to the ice point temperature without freezing, thereby preventing freeze injury, and prolonging shelf life.
Clarke teaches a system for and a method of supplying electrical power to a plurality of refrigerated containers. The method includes the steps of: obtaining carriage criteria of one or more refrigerated containers, processing said carriage criteria in a central processor configured to control power supply to a plurality of refrigerated containers, on basis of output of said central processor, managing electrical power supply to said plurality of refrigerated containers.
Bozchalui teaches a mathematical optimization models of produce storage facilities to optimize the operation of their energy systems in the context of smart grids. In the storage facilities, climate control of the storage rooms consumes considerable energy; thus, in this paper, a mathematical model of storage facilities appropriate for their optimal operation is developed, so that it can be implemented as a supervisory control in existing climate controllers. The proposed model incorporates weather forecasts, electricity price information, and the end-user preferences to optimally operate existing climate control systems in storage facilities. The objective is to minimize total energy costs and demand charges while considering important parameters of storage facilities, i.e., inside temperature and humidity should be kept within acceptable ranges. The performance of the proposed model for various electricity prices and weather conditions and their variations are studied via Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS). The presented simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed model to reduce total energy costs while maintaining required operational constraints.
None of the above prior art explicitly teaches “determining the operational schedule based on processing (i) the sensor data and (ii) the model, wherein the operational schedule comprises instructions for operational levels of the components for each room of the plurality of rooms at different time segments; and
automatically executing instructions to cause the components for each room of the plurality of rooms to cool the respective room according to the operational schedule at the different time segments” and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record and are objected to as provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
At Step 1 the claims fall under one of the four statutory categories. The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a plurality of rooms in a facility, wherein each room of the plurality of rooms is configured to maintain respective storage items according to respective storage factors, and wherein each room of the plurality of rooms comprises components for controlling conditions in the room according to an operational schedule; and a scheduler configured to determine the operational schedule, wherein the scheduler is configured to perform a process comprising: receiving sensor data generated by sensors in the plurality of rooms; obtaining a model that is configured to model conditions in each room of the plurality of rooms for one or more periods of time; determining the operational schedule based on processing (i) the sensor data and (ii) the model, wherein the operational schedule comprises instructions for operational levels of the components for each room of the plurality of rooms at different time segments; and automatically executing instructions to cause the components for each room of the plurality of rooms to cool the respective room according to the operational schedule at the different time segments. Claims 8 and 17 recite similar limitations as Claim 1 and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 8, and 17 are directed to “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, Mathematical Concepts such as “mathematical calculations”, and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-20 contain the same abstract idea with respect to claims 1, 8, and 17 and they further limit the abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 8, and 17 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 8, and 17 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 8, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶149-150 “FIG. 12 is a schematic diagram of an example of a generic computer system 1100. The system 1100 can be used for the operations described in association with the methods 700, 800, and/or 900 according to one implementation. For example, the system 1100 may be included in either or all of the controller 132, the refrigeration system 130, the scheduler 140, the utility provider 160, the other information provider 170, the edge node controller 614, and the context cluster 640. The system 1100 includes a processor 1110, a memory 1120, a storage device 1130, and an input/output device 1140. Each of the components 1110, 1120, 1130, and 1140 are interconnected using a system bus 1150. The processor 1110 is capable of processing instructions for execution within the system 1100. In one implementation, the processor 1110 is a single-threaded processor. In another implementation, the processor 1110 is a multi-threaded processor. The processor 1110 is capable of processing instructions stored in the memory 1120 or on the storage device 1130 to display graphical information for a user interface on the input/output device 1140”.
As a result, claims 1, 8, and 17 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is 571-272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form, Home - Patent Center - USPTO.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights