Longoni, Gianluca

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 5, 2019

13834768 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2019)

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.
13/834,768 03/15/2013 Gianluca Longoni NSD2012-020 4932
26353 7590 12/05/2019
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
EXAMINER
MAPAR, BIJAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2019 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):
guerral@westinghouse.com
spadacjc@westinghouse.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GIANLUCA LONGONI
____________________

Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 seeks review of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5–7, which are all claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the original
Specification, filed March 15, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed October 5, 2017; “Appeal Br.” for Appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed
May 22, 2018; “Ans.” for Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 7, 2018; and
“Reply Br.” for Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed October 9, 2018.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
“fluid transients in a nuclear reactor power plant and, more particularly, to
evaluating acoustic waves originating from fluid transients in the main steam
lines of a boiling water reactor.” Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification explains that
a main steam line break (MSLB) in a boiling water reactor “can result in a
rapid change in . . . pressure which can lead to generation of acoustic waves
propagating throughout the main steam lines and reaching the reactor
internals, in particular, the steam dryer.” Id. ¶ 2. An “object of the
invention [is] to develop a computational methodology to calculate the
dynamic loads on steam dryers . . . resulting from a MSLB event.” Id. ¶ 4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of determining a dynamic load, acoustic in
nature, on a steam dryer resulting from steam hammer3
generated by a main steam line break event in a boiling water
reactor, the method comprising:
[(1)] developing an acoustic network model of propagation of
pressure pulses at sonic velocity through main steam lines of
the reactor extending from the main steam line break upstream
to the reactor pressure vessel and from the main steam line
break through the pressure equalizer to the steam dryer,
comprising:
identifying a number of main steam lines;
identifying a break in one of the number of main steam
lines;

3 The term “steamhammer” refers to “unsteady flow conditions and
phenomena” in a boiling water reactor. Spec. ¶ 16 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

3
specifying a volume of a pressure equalizer positioned on
one side of the break;
specifying a volume of a reactor pressure vessel
positioned on opposite other side of the break; and
indicating more than one junction points in each of the
number of main steam lines and identifying a plurality of
pipe segments located between the junction points, the
more than one junction points comprising:
a first point located at the connection of the main
steam line with the reactor pressure vessel;
a second point corresponding to a location where
the break occurs; and
a third point located at the connection of the main
steam line with the pressure equalizer;
[(2)] utilizing the acoustic network model for calculating an
acoustic pressure and velocity generated by the steam transient
propagating in each of the plurality of main steam lines from
the first point to the second point and from the second point to
the third point, comprising:
[(2a)] employing a computer-based mathematical
algorithm to determine A and B integration constants in
Equations 1 and 2 for each of the plurality of main steam
lines, in each of the plurality of pipe segments located
between the junction points:
�̂�𝑝(𝑥𝑥,𝜔𝜔) = ρ𝑎𝑎2�𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛(𝜔𝜔)𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑘𝑘1𝑛𝑛𝑥𝑥 + 𝐵𝐵𝑛𝑛(𝜔𝜔)𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑘𝑘2𝑛𝑛𝑥𝑥�𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (1)
𝑢𝑢�(𝑥𝑥,𝜔𝜔) = �− �𝑖𝑖+𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘1𝑛𝑛
𝑘𝑘1𝑛𝑛
� 𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑘𝑘1𝑛𝑛𝑥𝑥 − �
𝑖𝑖+𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘2𝑛𝑛
𝑘𝑘2𝑛𝑛
� 𝐵𝐵𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑘𝑘2𝑛𝑛𝑥𝑥� 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (2)
[(2b)] determining boundary conditions for the steam
hammer being evaluated, comprising:
specifying density, speed of sound in steam,
position in the MSL, and angular frequency; and
calculating roots of dispersion for each of the
plurality of pipe segments in each of the plurality
of main steam lines;
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

4
[(3)] determining pressure continuity at the first point for each
of the plurality of main steam lines that does not include the
break;
[(4)] determining mass and pressure continuity for each of the
plurality of main steam lines that does not include the break;
[(5)] determining pressure continuity at the third point for each
of the plurality of main steam lines that does not include the
break;
[(6)] introducing time-dependent behavior of the steam hammer
by applying a mass conservation equation to one or more of the
pressure equalizer and the reactor pressure vessel for
determining steam volume therein, according to Equation 4:
𝑉𝑉 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖
= ∑ρ𝑎𝑎2𝐴𝐴𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖𝑛𝑛 − ∑ρ𝑎𝑎2𝐴𝐴𝑢𝑢𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑖𝑖 (4)
wherein, ρ represents density, ɑ represents speed of sound in
steam, μin represents velocity in, μout represents velocity out,
and A is an identifier for the main steam line wherein the break
is postulated; and
[(7)] calculating acoustic velocity for an inlet of each of the
plurality of main steam lines.
Appeal Br. 9–10 (Claims App.) (footnote and emphases added).
THE REJECTION4
Claims 1 and 5–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3–5.

4 The Final Office Action also rejected claims 1 and 5–7 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over certain references (see Final Act. 6–15),
but these rejections were withdrawn following Applicant’s February 5, 2018
amendment. See Advisory Action, mailed March 13, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

5
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection of Claims 1 and 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized implicit exceptions to this section:
“‘Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.’” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)). To determine whether a claim falls within one of these
excluded categories, the Court has set out a two-part framework. The
framework requires us first to consider whether the claim is “directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then
examine “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered
combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S.
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

6
at 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claims for an “inventive
concept,” “an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration
in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
The Patent Office issued guidance regarding this framework. See
USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance,
to decide whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate
whether the claim (1) recites subject matter falling within an abstract idea
grouping listed in the Revised Guidance and (2) fails to integrate the recited
abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 51. If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, as noted above, we
then determine whether the claim recites an inventive concept. The Revised
Guidance explains that when making this determination, we should consider
whether the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[] well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
With these principles in mind, we turn to the Examiner’s § 101
rejection.
The Judicial Exception—Abstract Idea
The Examiner determined the claims are directed to the abstract idea
of “mathematical calculations for determining acoustic load of a reactor.”
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

7
Final Act. 3. The Examiner further stated, “the claim as currently written
seems to recite primarily mathematical calculations, especially those tied to
modeling physical phenomena, with the addition of abstract data
manipulation in the form of general models.” Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that the claims are not abstract because they are
directed to “a particular solution” with “specific steps having specific
characteristics.” Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant explains that its particular
solution includes improvements to the conventional mathematical formulas.
See Reply Br. 2 (“The inventors conceived of modifying Equations 1 and 2
of the known acoustic circuit model and in addition, utilizing a mass
conservation equation (i.e., Equation 4) for the steam volumes in the
model.”).
For the reasons explained below, we agree with the Examiner that the
claims recite an abstract idea.
The Specification explains that a main steam line break (MSLB) in a
boiling water reactor can cause “generation of acoustic waves propagating
throughout the main steam lines and reaching the reactor internals, in
particular, the steam dryer.” Spec. ¶ 2. “[T]he invention provides a
computation method containing a mathematical model for determining a
dynamic load . . . on the steam dryer” resulting from a main steam line
break. Id. ¶ 5. Specifically, the described method develops “a network
model of the main steam lines” and “calculat[es] an acoustic load generated
by the fluid transient propagating in the main steam line” using Equations 1,
2, and 4. Id. ¶¶ 5–6.
Limitations (1)–(7) of claim 1, quoted above, under their broadest
reasonable interpretation, each recite a mental process or mathematical
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

8
concept. Specifically, limitation (1) recites “developing an acoustic network
model” by “identifying” or “specifying” certain parameters. Limitation (2)
recites “utilizing the acoustic network model,” which comprises (2a)
“employing a . . . mathematical algorithm” to solve Equations 1 and 2 for
“integration constants” and (2b) “determining boundary conditions” by
“specifying” or “calculating” other parameters. Limitations (3)–(5)
“determin[e]” additional parameters, and limitations (6) and (7) apply
Equation 4 and “calculat[e]” a result, respectively.
When claimed in a manner similar to the claims here, a claim reciting
a mathematical concept or calculation has been determined to be an abstract
idea. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a
mathematical formula] . . . cannot support a patent unless there is some other
inventive concept in its application.”); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding claims for providing statistical
analysis of investment data were directed to the abstract idea of analyzing
information “using mathematical techniques”); Digitech Image Techs., LLC
v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding
that “a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations
and . . . not tied to a specific structure or machine” to be abstract).
Moreover, “identifying,” “specifying,” “indicating,” and “determining”
parameters or variables each constitute an observation, evaluation, judgment,
or opinion, which could be performed as a mental process, i.e., an abstract
idea. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

9
Accordingly, we conclude the claims recite mathematical concepts or
mental processes, and thus, an abstract idea.5 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52–53 (listing “[m]athematical concepts—mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations” and “[m]ental processes--concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” each as one
of the “enumerated groupings of abstract ideas”).
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, we determine whether the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that
exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements
recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating
those additional elements individually and in combination to determine
whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. If the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim
is not directed to the judicial exception.
Here, claim 1 recites “a computer-based mathematical algorithm”
(limitation (2)). Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Considering claim 1 as a
whole, this additional element does not apply or use the abstract idea in a
meaningful way. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while
adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” is not sufficient to confer
patent eligibility.). The Examiner found that “[t]he only computer

5 Merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination
any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea
. . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

10
components recited are generic computer components.” Final Act. 4. We
agree. The Specification does not describe the computer used to implement
the “computer-based” algorithm, which indicates that the computer is a
generic component. See Spec. ¶ 21 (referencing “CHRONOS” computer
code, without providing any details).
Claim 1 also recites various components of a boiling water reactor,
including “main steam lines,” “a pressure equalizer,” and “a reactor pressure
vessel.” Appeal Br. 9–10 (Claims App.). But, the claim merely recites that
these components are “identif[ied]” or “specif[ied]” as part of “developing
an acoustic network model.” Id. (limitation (1)). Such limitations do not
integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See CyberSource
Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We
have held that mere data-gathering steps cannot make an otherwise
nonstatutory claim statutory.” (quotations and alterations omitted)).
Moreover, the abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular
machine. See MPEP § 2106.05(b). Indeed, the claimed method can be
performed without a boiling water reactor (and its components)—under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claimed acoustic
network model can be developed by “identifying” theoretical “main steam
lines” (e.g., main steam lines specified in a design of a boiling water reactor)
and “specifying” volumes for a theoretical “pressure equalizer” and “reactor
pressure vessel.” Consequently, we conclude that the recited “main steam
lines,” “a pressure equalizer,” and “a reactor pressure vessel” do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Versata Dev. Grp.
v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in
order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

11
in permitting the claimed method to be performed”); see also Affinity Labs
of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In
this case, the claims are directed not to an improvement in cellular
telephones but simply to the use of cellular telephones as tools in the aid of a
process focused on an abstract idea. That is not enough to constitute
patentable subject matter.”); cf. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850
F.3d 1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding claims that include a
mathematical algorithm to be patent eligible because “the claims are directed
to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional
manner”).
Appellant argues that claim 1 “improves the technical field of steam
hammer analysis and the dynamic acoustic load resulting therefrom,” and
thus, recites subject matter that improves a technology or technical field.
Appeal Br. 6–7 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839
F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In support, Appellant explains that
“[c]onventional methodology utilizes acoustic circuit equations to analyze
acoustic waves . . . . The methodology of the invention is based on a
modification of these acoustic circuit equations” by adding Equation 4 and
implementing the method in computer code. Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded by this argument that the claims integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. Appellant contends that the claims
recite an improved mathematical calculation, but this does not confer patent
eligibility. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (finding the addition of a mathematical equation did not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application); see Flook, 437 U.S. at 594
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

12
(The “process is unpatentable under § 101, not because it contains a
mathematical algorithm as one component, but because once that algorithm
is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole,
contains no patentable invention.”).
Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s reliance on
FairWarning and McRO. See Appeal Br. 6–7. First, Appellant appears to
argue that, because its claim improves an existing process rather than using a
computer to execute a known method, the claim is patent eligible under
FairWarning. Id. Appellant’s reliance on FairWarning is misplaced. In
that case, the Federal Circuit found the claims to be ineligible because they
added a computer to an existing process. 839 F.3d at 1094–95. But the
converse is not necessarily true. Rather, a claim may be ineligible even if it
adds a computer to a new process. Second, we perceive no reasonable
analogy to McRO. The claims in McRO “were directed to the creation of
something physical—namely, the display of ‘lip synchronization and facial
expressions’ of animated characters on screens for viewing by human eyes.”
SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167 (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313). But, here,
the focus of the claims is not any improved physical component, “but the
improved mathematical analysis.” Id. at 1168.
Finally, Appellant notes that claim 1 is not currently subject to an
anticipation or obviousness rejection, showing that the recited method “was
not routine nor conventional at the time of the invention.” Appeal Br. 7–8.
However, “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of
the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject
matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable
subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

13
1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at
188–89).
Accordingly, even in combination with all the other recited elements,
the addition of “computer-based mathematical algorithm” and the recited
components of a boiling water reactor do not integrate the abstract idea into
a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. For these reasons, we determine that claim 1
does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Inventive Concept
Because we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is “directed to” an
abstract idea, we consider whether an additional element (or combination of
elements) adds a limitation that is not well-understood, routine, conventional
(“WURC”) activity in the field or whether the additional elements simply
append WURC activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 56. The Examiner’s finding that an additional element (or
combination of elements) is WURC activity must be supported with a
factual determination. Id. at n.36 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d), as modified
by the Berkheimer Memorandum6). Whether additional elements are
WURC activity is a question of fact. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d
1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Whether something is well-understood,
routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan . . . is a factual
determination.”).

6 Robert W. Bahr, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP, Inc.) (2018) (hereinafter “Berkheimer Memorandum”).
Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

14
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the claims on
appeal add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field, whether the
limitations are considered individually or as an ordered combination (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The Examiner found that “[t]he only computer
components recited are generic computer components.” Final Act. 4.
Although Appellant argues that the claim as a whole was “not routine nor
conventional at the time of the invention” (Appeal Br. 7), Appellant neither
responds to the Examiner’s finding nor points to a particular claimed
element that does not qualify as WURC. See id. In fact, Appellant’s
Specification demonstrates the WURC nature of the “computer-based”
algorithm because it indicates it may be implemented with generic devices.
Spec. ¶ 21. Moreover, the Specification does not describe the boiling water
reactor or its components in any detail, indicating that they are conventional
technology. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 5, 21, Fig. 1.
For these reasons, we conclude that claim 1, considered as a whole,
does not include an inventive concept.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of independent
claim 1. The dependent claims (i.e., claims 5–7) fall with their respective
independent claim. See Appeal Br. 8 (dependent claims not separately
argued); Reply Br. 3 (same).
CONCLUSIONS
In summary:

Appeal 2019-000204
Application 13/834,768

15
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7 101 Eligibility 1, 5–7

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED