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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 19, and 20, the applicant claims “a design of a thermal model”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the term “design”. A design can be an indefinite amount of variations. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a borehole geometry.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “the design parameters include borehole geometry data for one or more boreholes of the borefield, and/or completion geometry data for a completion of the one or more boreholes”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with “and/or”. What ordered combination should be considered. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “the design parameters include borehole geometry data for one or more boreholes of the borefield, or completion geometry data for a completion of the one or more boreholes”.
With respect to claim 3, the applicant claims wherein the measurement inputs include a flowrate of the thermal fluid through the ground heat exchanger and/or a thermal flux between the thermal fluid and the borefield”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with “and/or”. What ordered combination should be considered. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “wherein the measurement inputs include a flowrate of the thermal fluid through the ground heat exchanger or a thermal flux between the thermal fluid and the borefield”.
With respect to claim 9, the applicant claims “generating a digital twin of the borefield by inferring a temperature at one or more locations in the borefield based on the predicted borefield parameters”. After review of the specification, it appears that the purpose for generating a digital twin of the borefield is for inferring a temperature at one or more locations in the borefield based on the predicted borefield parameters and not by inferring. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “generating a digital twin of the borefield
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-16, and 18-20 are 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) receiving design parameters, receive measurement inputs, predict thermal values, predict borefield parameters, and monitor the thermal system.
The limitations of predict thermal values, predict borefield parameters, and monitor the thermal system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor and a memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor and a memory” language, predicting and monitoring in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyze the data and calculate an outcome or an output using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. 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, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite a processor and a memory to perform the recited steps. The processor and the memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. With respect to the limitations of “receiving design parameters, and receive measurement inputs”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the predicting and mentoring steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a memory to perform both the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving design parameters, and receiving measurement inputs” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors used to measure values during operation of the heat pump system are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art. Furthermore, Holtzman US 2021/0025623 A1 discloses geothermal heat mining systems that include sensors to receive information about the geothermal formation, boreholes, fluids in the primary and secondary fluid loops, including local rock and fluid temperatures, stress in the rock, pressure in the fluid, elastic vibrations due to microseismicity, electrical conductivity, and any other pertinent information (Paragraph 0086). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-16 and 18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-16 and 18 include additional steps that can be performed mentally and do not include any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16, and 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 20, the claim limitation recites “A computer-readable storage
medium”. However, the usage of the phrase “computer-readable storage medium” is
broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” (moving electrons, etc)
media. The specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a non-transitory
computer readable medium (Specification, Paragraph 0087, “Alternatively, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may include instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform the acts of FIG. 10”) and, thus does not constitute functional descriptive material. Therefore, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zakiewicz US 8,020,382 B1 (hence Zakiewicz).
In re claims 1, and 19-20, Zakiewicz discloses a closed loop system of heat recovery in hot dry rock or in water-containing formations for generation of electrical power (Abstract) and teaches the following:
operating a thermal system implementing a ground-source heat pump (Abstract), comprising:
receiving design parameters associated with a design of the thermal system (Col.2, line 47 – Col.3, line 4 “The disclosure of the '830 patent is incorporated herein”);
receiving one or more measurement inputs associated with a flow of a thermal fluid through a borefield of a ground heat exchanger (Col.3, lines 51-54 “Flow rate, temperature and pressure sensors for the heat transfer fluid are provided”);
based on the measurement inputs and the design parameters, predicting one or more predicted thermal values of the thermal fluid using a forward model (Col.3, lines 20-26 “These average temperatures are inferred from calculated heat recovery from the level”);
predicting one or more predicted borefield parameters of the borefield based on inverting the forward model (Col.3, lines 51-54 “flow rates to the heat recovery levels are slowly increased in steps to determine that a specific flow rate results in a stable and relatively unchanging average temperature in the formation and which returns to a mixed heated recovery vapor drum a desired temperature and pressure of the heated recovery vapor”);
and monitoring the thermal system based on the predicted borefield parameters (Col.3, line 62 – Col.4, line 5)
In re claim 2, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein the design parameters include borehole geometry data for one or more boreholes of the borefield, and/or completion geometry data for a completion of the one or more boreholes (Col.2, line 47 – Col.3, line 4)
In re claim 3, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein the measurement inputs include a flowrate of the thermal fluid through the ground heat exchanger and/or a thermal flux between the thermal fluid and the borefield (Col.3, lines 51-54)
In re claim 4, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein inverting the forward model includes minimizing a target difference between the predicted thermal values and one or more measured thermal values (Col.4, lines 49-56)
In re claim 5, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein the predicted thermal values include one or more of a predicted inlet temperature of the thermal fluid flowing into the ground heat exchanger, a predicted outlet temperature of the thermal fluid flowing out of the ground heat exchanger, a predicted flow rate of the thermal fluid through the ground heat exchanger, and a predicted fluid pressure drop of the thermal fluid (Col.3, lines 23-26)
In re claim 6, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein predicting the one or more predicted thermal values with the forward model and inverting the forward model to predict the one or more predicted borefield parameters are each performed during operation of the ground-source heat pump (Col.3, lines 20-45)
In re claim 7, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein the one or more predicted borefield parameters includes one or more of a predicted ground thermal conductivity, a predicted grout thermal conductivity, and a predicted far-field ground temperature (Col.2, line 47 – Col.3, line 4)
In re claim 8, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein monitoring the thermal system includes monitoring a health of the thermal system based on tracking the predicted borefield parameters over time (Col.4, lines 6-17)
In re claim 14, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein monitoring the thermal system includes determining a fault of the thermal system based on a deviation of one or more measured thermal values from the one or more predicted thermal values (Col. 3, line 66 – Col.4, line 5)
In re claim 15, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein monitoring the thermal system includes determining a thermal state of charge of the borefield (Col. 3, line 66 – Col.4, line 5)
In re claim 16, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein monitoring the thermal system includes predicting one or more future thermal values (Col. 3, line 66 – Col.4, line 5)
In re claim 17, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
further comprising controlling an operation of the ground-source heat pump based on the predicted borefield parameters (Fig.1)
In re claim 18, Zakiewicz teaches the following:
wherein the one or more predicted borefield parameters include one or more of a predicted ground thermal conductivity, a predicted grout thermal conductivity, and a predicted far-field ground temperature (Col.2, line 47 – Col.3, line 4)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adil et al US 10,393,919 B2 discloses apparatus and methods for determining downhole fluid parameters.
Stewart et al US 2012/0090807 A1 discloses at least one borehole heat exchanger and a geothermal energy system and to a method of operating a geothermal energy system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights