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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgement is hereby made to the Preliminary Amendment filed 22 July 2025. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-14 have been amended.
Abstract of the Disclosure
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its length exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are drafted in non-traditional narrative form using the passive rather than active voice resulting in multiple minor issues that impact overall claim presentation and clarity.1 The claims are also replete with minor informalities including simple antecedent basis issues due to the use of slightly different terminology for the recited systems state terms. The Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review the claims and make any additional necessary corrections to improve overall clarity including the suggested changes set forth in the following marked-up version of claim 1 in order to improve overall clarity and correct any minor informalities.
Suggested claim amendment set forth herein below:
(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for control and/or regulation of a single-compressor station with a compressor, where an actual pressure and an actual operating state of the compressor are recorded, ensuring that despite possible fluctuating extraction of compressed fluid from a system including the single- compression station, the actual pressure is maintained within a pressure interval between an upper and a lower pressure limit, so that a load command is determined and transmitted to the compressor, wherein
a tree structure with a plurality of nodes representing a plurality of simulated system states and edges representing a plurality of simulated load commands is created, the method comprising the following :
determining the load command to be transmitted to the compressor[[,]] starting from [[the]] an actual operating state at a current point of time to, and for a next point of time tl, by simulating different load commands and calculating expected actual pressures and cost values each of the simulated [[the]] system states, wherein a respective cost value depends on a required energy, with the valid system states [[are]] stored, and for each valid system state, the expected actual pressure at [[the]] point of time tl is assigned and stored in a system state pressure class, and for each valid system state, a control state of the compressor [[to be]] expected at the point of time tl is determined and a control state class is assigned to the expected control state and stored, and selecting at least one of:
all control states resulting from the simulated load commands
a subset of the system states resulting from the simulated load commands
wherein the simulated load command is stored for each system state simulated at the point of time tl[[,]];
simulating the load commands and the resulting system states and calculating [[with]] the expected actual pressures and cost values calculated for the system states, determining a control state of the compressor expected at the point of time of time ti+1 iwherein for each system state simulated for the point of time ti+1, at least the originally simulated load command at the point of time tl is stored, and for each system state resulting from the simulated load commands with the same system state pressure class and the same control state class, at least the system state with the lowest cost value is selected as a node at the point of time ti+1[[,]];
determining a selected system state with a lowest cost value the system states selected at the point of time tn, ; and
transmitting the load command selected from the simulated load commands stored for the selected system state at point of time t1 to the compressor, causing the compressor to operate at the selected system state and maintaining the actual pressure of the compressed fluid in the system between the upper and lower pressure limits 2
.
In claim 4, line 3, “a function, whereby the additionally considers recovered heat” should read --a function that considers the recovered heat--.
In claim 5, line 2, “process” should read --method--.
In claim 11, line 2, “at least the initially simulated load commands” should read --at least the simulated load commands--.
In claim 12, line 2, “two lists are used:” should read –two lists comprising:--.
In claim 13, lines 2-3, “or multiple system states, particularly the system states with the lowest cost values, are selected” should read –multiple system states are selected--.
In claim 14, line 2, “process” should read --method--.
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.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Although the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition), which would normally be considered within an appropriate statutory category, as has been noted in the recent Supreme Court decisions Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. at 3227, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Bancorp Services, L. L. C v Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), -- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 3037176 (Fed. Circ. 2012) one must look beyond whether the claim falls within a statutory category and determine whether or not the claim is an attempt to patent ineligible subject matter which the courts have proclaimed judicially excepted, specifically, laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas. The Supreme Court noted that said decisions are instructive on how to investigate issues of subject matter eligibility and that the question underlying such an investigation is whether or not the claim is an attempt to claim subject matter which has been judicially excepted.
Step 1- Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Determine statutory category of invention
Step 2A - A determination of whether the claim(s) is/are directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, product of nature or an abstract idea must be performed.
Examples of abstract ideas include:
Fundamental economic practices
Certain methods of organizing human activities
An idea of itself
Mathematical relationships/formulas
Mental activities
Revised Step 2A Guidance: Prong Two: Determine whether claims recite judicial exception and evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Evaluate whether claims as a whole integrated the judicial exception into a practical application
Identifying whether additional elements recited in the claims beyond judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements individually or in combination integrate the exception into practical application
Additional elements reflect an improvement in functioning of computer, or to other technology or field
Additional element applies or uses exception to effect particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition
Additional element implements exception with or uses with particular machine or manufacture
Additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a difference state or thing
Additional elements applied or uses the exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Step 2B - A determination of whether the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of limitations which qualify as "significantly more" include:
Improvements in another technology or technical field;
Improvements in the functioning of the computer itself;
Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of limitations which fail to qualify as "significantly more" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;
Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are wall-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Please refer to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (“the 2019 Revised PEG”).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of an algorithm for simulating load commands for a compressor comprising steps of using a tree structure with nodes to simulate system states over times to determine a compressor load command. The algorithm includes a series of mathematical concepts, relationships, calculations involving data manipulation and handling. And, the algorithm represents mental processes or concepts performable in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of transmitting the load command to the compressor simply represents creating and transmitting a signal. The claims fail to require any no direct or explicit control or operation of the compressor after transmission of the load command signal. For these reasons and the additional rationale set forth in the subsequent paragraphs, the claims currently presented are not patent eligible.
As to claim 1, this claim is directed towards a computer-implemented process for control and regulation of a single compressor station using a tree structure with nodes to simulate system states over times to determine a load command. The algorithm is a series of mathematical concepts, relationships, or calculations involving data gathering, manipulation and handling as well as mental processes or concepts performable in the human mind. The claims are similar to claims at issue to the claims in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (Flook). Also, in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010), and Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347, which the Supreme Court held were directed to "abstract ideas." In this case however, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of an algorithm that simulates system states and determines a compressor load command to maintain pressure levels in a system accounting for cost values for the simulated system states, inter alia. There is no transformation of the abstract idea to a meaningful output such as controlling the operation the motor of the compressor, or changing the operational systems states of the compressor in order to maintain pressure levels in the system per se. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements including the preamble limitations3 of computer-implemented process where actual pressure and states are recorded ensuring that actual pressure is maintained, or the step of transmitting the load command to the compressor are: 1) preamble limitations defining the context in which the algorithm is performed including insignificant data gathering __activities that do not explicitly require or define any positively recited control or operational steps, and 2) conventional steps that provide for implementation on a general-purpose computer at an high-level of generalization that does implement a practical application per se. That is, the combination of elements including the compressor or system generally do not positively recite the process doing anything practical after determination of the load command. In other words, there is no meaningful application or transformation of these steps to perform useful activity such as operating or controlling the compressor to maintain system pressure with actual load commands other than transmitting the load command to the compressor which only involves the creation of a signal. That is, the claims do not require the system doing anything operationally practical with the load command signal determined by the algorithm forming the abstract idea.
The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims such as transmitting the load command to the compressor or the preamble step of the process being computer-implemented fail to amount to more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, i. e., a controller, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pumping industry. In this regard, implementing a control or simulation algorithm on a general-purpose computer is well known. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination improves the functioning of the compressor or improves the technology as a whole. The collective functions appear to manipulate well known and understood compressor simulation data using the patentably ineligible judicial exception of an abstract idea including mathematical concepts, relationships, or calculations involving data gathering. manipulation and handling as well as mental processes or concepts performable in the human mind. That is, given how the claim is currently presented, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application because the result of the algorithm is not being used to directly control the compressor or system generally. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(b).
Moreover, the claims as a whole do not include additional features that applies the exception in any meaningful way because the claims lack limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field. The claims simply do not recite any meaningful limitations using the process to control or operate a compressor to achieve a specific load or system state. That is, the step of transmitting the load command to the compressor is equivalent to using the term “apply it" which has been commonly recognized as patent ineligible insignificant post solution activity. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea. As was the case in Alice, "the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is '[p]urely conventional." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2349. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As to claims 2-14, these claims recite additional method steps including mathematical calculations and/or data manipulation activities of the algorithm that are grouped with the abstract idea. The claimed method steps, taken individually or in combination, do not add significantly more to the concept nor integrate it into a practical application.
For at least the above reasons, the instant claims are directed to an abstract idea because none of these claims recite subject matter than amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the aforesaid claims are not patent eligible.
Notes on Prior Art Rejections
Based upon search and review of the available prior art, a prior art rejection of the claims is not currently being made.4
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Roy et al. (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 3974918) discloses a computer implemented method of controlling a compressed air system involving estimating state and predicting future process variables representing the general state of the art (FIG.’s 1-6, Abstract).
Wagner (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0029706) discloses a simulation method for controlling a compressor system representing the general state of the art (FIG.’s 1-11, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 These issues appear to be the result of an inaccurate or incomplete translation. Applicant is requested to carefully review the claims and make any additional necessary corrections to improve overall clarity.
2 Proposed additional claim limitation to address the 35 U.S.C. 101 issues identified below.
3 The claims lengthy preamble is interpreted as providing the context for implementation of the claimed process but is not interpreted a positively reciting actual control or operation steps per se. This is due to the how the preamble is presented using the terms process for … where an actual pressure .. are recorded which does not positively recite actual control, sensing or measuring activity or operations.
4 The claimed process/method does not appear to be anticipated nor rendered obvious by the available prior art.
Prosecution Insights