2020004878 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2021)

Ingersoll-Rand Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 15, 2021

2020004878 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/614,344 02/04/2015 John J. Linehan 20019.0741USU1 6357 174692 7590 11/15/2021 Murgitroyd-Advent, LLP 17838 Burke Street, Suite 200 Omaha, NE 68118 EXAMINER BOOKER, KELVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): uspto@adventip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHN J. LINEHAN, KELLY GLENN CAMPBELL, RYAN D. HARTMAN, NICHOLAS ABLE, ERIC W. SEIDEL, and CHUN JIAN TANG ____________________ Appeal 2020-004878 Application 14/614,344 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ingersoll-Rand Co. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-004878 Application 14/614,344 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim Appellant’s disclosed invention, entitled “System and Method for Modeling Simulation, Optimization, and/or Quote Creation” (see Spec. Title) (emphases omitted), generally relates to modeling, simulating, optimizing, and/or generating a quote for a system such as a compressed air system. A compressed air system in a facility typically includes many components, such as one or more compressors, dryers, tanks, pipes, and/or regulators. Compressed air systems are typically designed to provide compressed air at a desired flow rate, pressure, temperature, and quality at a high efficiency to minimize energy consumption. Spec. 1:13–18. Appellant discloses a visual results interface 504 for visualization of simulation results using graphs, gauges, tables, etc. (see Spec. 25:14–16), and a feedback Graphical User Interface (GUI) 506 for providing a user with recommendations for compressed air systems, including information such as “a sales quote including pricing details corresponding to each component in the simulated virtual compressed air system” (Spec. 25:19–20). Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to key portions of the claim at issue, reads as follows: 1. A method, comprising: receiving, with a computer, a set of library data relating to a compressed air system from a database at a first server; displaying, with a first graphical user interface (GUI) on the computer, a visual representation of each of the set of library data in a first portion of the GUI, a settings interface in a second portion of the GUI, and a modeling interface in a third portion of the GUI; Appeal 2020-004878 Application 14/614,344 3 receiving, through the GUI, a user initiated request to add at least a portion of the set library data to the second portion of the GUI to form a model of a compressed air system; receiving a demand profile from a user; receiving, through the GUI, a user initiated request to simulate the model; simulating the model of the system to generate simulation data; determining one or more optimization gaps based on the simulation data and the demand profile; determining a recommendation based on the one or more optimization gap; transmitting the recommendation to a second server; receiving a sales quote for one or more products from the second server based on the recommendation; displaying, with a second GUI on the computer, the simulation data, the sales quote, and the recommendation. Appeal Br. 14–15, Claims Appendix (emphases and bracketed lettering added). Remaining independent claims 11 (system) and 17 (computing device) recite commensurate limitations and subject matter. The Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention, because the Examiner finds claims 1, 11, and 17 are incomplete due to the omission of essential steps and relationships, such as the analytic/determination process for determining optimization gaps and recommendations. See Non-Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–5, 14–17. (1) Claims 1–7, 10–17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nixon et al. (US 7,783,370 B2; issued Aug. 24, 2010) (hereinafter, “Nixon”) and Blevins et al. (US Appeal 2020-004878 Application 14/614,344 4 9,046,881 B2; issued June 2, 2015) (hereinafter, “Blevins”). Non-Final Act. 5–14; Ans. 5–14. ANALYSIS Issue (1): Indefiniteness With regard to claims 1–21, the Examiner finds the steps of determining one or more optimization gaps and a recommendation based on the optimization gaps recited in claim 1, and the commensurate limitations recited in claims 11 and 17, are indefinite for omitting essential steps, elements, and/or relationships and make the scope of claims 1–21 indefinite (see Non-Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–5, 14–17). Appellant asserts that the analytics used to make the recited determinations are not essential, and are, in fact, well-known (Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 3–4). We agree with Appellant, because “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 3–4) that the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1–21 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. As a result, we do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 1–21. Issue (2): Obviousness We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection (Final Act. 5–14; Ans. 5–14) in light of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 8–13; Reply Appeal 2020-004878 Application 14/614,344 5 Br. 5–6) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Ans. 17–19). We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in finding (i) claims 1–7, 10–17, and 21 obvious over Nixon and Blevins because Blevins’ “cost” information (see Blevins col. 9, ll. 5–30 (relied on by the Examiner as teaching the recited “sales quote”) is not equivalent to, and fails to teach or suggest, the recited “sales quote” of claims 1, 11, and 17 (see Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 5–6). Appellant provides a description of “a sales quote [as] including pricing details corresponding to each component in the simulated virtual compressed air system” (Spec. 25:19–20). In this light, Appellant’s contentions (as to claims 1, 7, and 11) that Blevins, and thus the combination of Nixon and Blevins, fails to teach or suggest using a sales quote in the recited method, system, and/or computing device (see Appeal Br. 9–11), are persuasive. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–7, 10–17, and 21. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection relying on the combination of Nixon and Blevins. Appeal 2020-004878 Application 14/614,344 6 CONCLUSION2 For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows: In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–21 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–21 1–7, 10–17, 21 103 Nixon, Blevins 1–7, 10–17, 21 Overall Outcome 1–21 REVERSED 2 We leave it the Examiner in the event of further prosecution, including any review prior to allowance, to consider a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the Director’s 2019 Revised Guidance for all claims 1–21 on appeal. Specifically, the Examiner should consider whether the “determining . . .” steps are (i) abstract ideas such as mental processes; and/or (ii) well- understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).