CARRIER CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2021

2020002003 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 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.
15/443,098 02/27/2017 Prabhu Raja SUBBARAYALU VENKITAPATHI 98384US01 (U301290US 5139
87059 7590 03/11/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
DRODGE, JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PRABHU RAJA SUBBARAYALU VENKITAPATHI,
VINOTH KUMAR ANNAMALAI, JASMINE SINGH, and
NIRAJ KUMAR1
____________

Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON,
MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6, 8–16, 18, and 20–24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of managing waste
water treatment processes. E.g., Spec. 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Carrier Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

2
below from page 10 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for dynamically managing waste water treatment
process in a waste water treatment plant, the method comprising:
collecting, by a waste water treatment system, operational data
from one or more data sources
identifying, by the waste water treatment system, one or more
operational parameters based on the operational data, wherein
the one or more operational parameters are used for managing
one or more waste water treatment processes;
identifying, by the waste water treatment system, one or more
historical threshold values for each of the one or more
operational parameters based on historic operational data
associated with each of the one or more operational parameters;
calculating, by the waste water treatment system, one or more
degrees of influence for each of the one or more operational
parameters based on historic operational data associated with
each of the one or more operational parameters, the one or more
degrees of influence of the one or more operational parameters
indicating a measure of the extent to which an operational
parameter affects the one or more waste water processes;
determining, by the waste water treatment system, one or more
real-time threshold value for each of the one or more operational
parameters based on at least one of real-time operational data,
historical threshold values and degrees of influence related to
each of the one or more operational parameters;
identifying, by the waste water treatment system, one or more
inflection points for each of the one or more operational
parameters based on the one or more historical threshold values,
the one or more real-time threshold values and the one or more
degrees of influence; and
optimizing, by the waste water treatment system, one or more
control mechanisms used in the waste water treatment plant,
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

3
based on the one or more inflection points thereby, optimizing
power consumption for the waste water treatment plant;
wherein optimizing the one or more control mechanisms
comprises controlling equipment at the waste water treatment
plant based on the one or more inflection points, wherein the
equipment includes at least one of a valve, a mixer, an aerator
and a blower.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1–4, 6, 8–16, 18, and 20–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
2. Claims 1–4, 6, 8–16, 18, and 20–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action dated March 19, 2019, and in the Examiner’s Answer.
Rejection 1
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative, and the remaining claims subject to Rejection 1 will stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Determining whether a claimed invention is patent eligible under
§ 101 is a two-step process that requires (1) evaluating whether the claim is
directed toward a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

4
phenomenon, or abstract idea; and, if so, (2) determining whether the
claim’s elements, considered both individually and as an ordered
combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18
(2014).
As to step (1) of Alice, the Examiner determines in the Final Action
that claim 1 is directed to the abstract ideas “of data processing and making
determinations utilizing mathematical algorithms,” and the Examiner
identifies several claim recitations that encompass abstract ideas. See Final
Act. 4–7. The Examiner also finds that the “identifying,” “calculating,”
“determining,” and “optimizing” steps “could be performed manually, or by
a generic computer, or generic computer components.” Id.
As to step (2) of Alice, the Examiner determines that “the claims taken
as a whole are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more”
because “[t]he claims lack recitation of any particular computer automation
equipment or elements” and because the claimed subject matter is recited
“with a high degree of generality. The claims are silent as to any specificity
of the waste water treatment plant as to particular equipment or process steps
for purifying water.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner finds that any recited
elements beyond the abstract ideas (i.e., valve, mixer, aerator, and blower)
“constitute only well-understood, routine and conventional elements,
operated in a ‘usual manner,’” and the Examiner cites several references in
support of that finding. Id. at 5–6.
Legal Framework
In determining whether a claim falls within a category excluded from
eligible subject matter, our inquiry focuses on the Supreme Court’s two-step
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

5
framework described in Mayo and Alice, set forth above. Alice, 573 U.S. at
217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)).
In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept
the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. Concepts determined
to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include, e.g., mathematical
concepts (e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)) and mental
processes (e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).2 “All USPTO

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
df).
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

6
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance.” Id. at 51.
Under the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. 2018)).
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial
exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
Judicial Exception (Guidance step (1))
In the Examiner’s Answer, and consistent with the Examiner’s
findings in the Final Action, the Examiner determines that claim 1 recites
both mathematical concepts and mental processes. Ans. 7–8. Consistent
with the Examiner’s analysis, claim 1 recites, e.g., steps of “identifying . . .
operation parameters,” “identifying . . . historical threshold values,” and
“calculating . . . one or more degrees of influence.” The Appellant does not
dispute that those processes could be performed manually in the human
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

7
mind. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6 (declining to present arguments concerning
whether the claims recite abstract ideas).
As noted above, claim 1 recites a step of “calculating . . . one or more
degrees of influence.” The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that the “calculating” step encompasses a mathematical concept. See
id.
On the record before us, and in accordance with the Guidance, the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that claim 1 recites both mental processes and mathematical concepts, and
thus recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Integration into a Practical Application (Guidance step (2))
Turning to step (2) of the Guidance, the Appellant fails to identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1, as a whole,
does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a
combination of additional elements in the claim to “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.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see
also id. at 55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that an
additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the
judicial exception into a practical application).
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, see Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 7–
12, claim 1 recites steps of “identifying,” “calculating,” “determining,” and
“optimizing.” The “identifying” steps specify generic categories, i.e., “one
or more operational parameters” and “one or more historical threshold
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

8
values” and are not limited in a meaningful way. The “optimizing” step
recites that “one or more control mechanisms used in the waste water
treatment plant” is optimized and indicates that the mechanisms to be
optimized are one of a valve, mixer, aerator, or blower. Appeal Br. 14. The
optimizing step does not identify any particular method by which the
optimization takes place. See id. The Examiner determines that, rather than
integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application, claim 1 “merely
generally link[s] the use of the judicial exception[s] to a particular
technology environment.” Ans. 10.
The Appellant argues that “[c]laim 1 clearly refers to a particular
system, particular equipment and a particular technology environment, all of
which are to be considered factors in determining resolving [sic]” step 2.
Appeal Br. 8.
That argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection. “An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the
invention to a particular field of use or technological environment,” such as
waste water treatment. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), NA, 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Appellant does not
persuasively identify any aspect of claim 1 indicative of integration into a
practical application, consistent with the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 53–55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that an
additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the
judicial exception into a practical application). For example, the Appellant
does not persuasively allege an improvement to technology or a technical
field; the Appellant does not persuasively allege that any particular machine
or manufacture is integral to the claim; and the Appellant does not
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

9
persuasively allege that any claim limitation results in a transformation or
reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See Appeal
Br. 8.
Claim 1’s recitation of waste water treatment processes and systems
simply specifies the technological environment, and the generic equipment
routinely associated with that environment (e.g., valves, mixers, aerators,
blowers), in which the method is performed. As the Examiner points out in
the Answer, certain disclosures in the Specification are significantly more
specific than claim 1; pages 22–23 of the Specification describe a scenario in
which actuated valve control or speed modulation in blowers may be applied
to optimize oxygen levels of an aeration process step. Claim 1, however,
does not include any such specifics that might be sufficient to integrate the
judicial exceptions into practical applications. On the contrary, claim 1
generically recites controlling generic, routine equipment (e.g., a valve,
mixer, aerator, or blower) to achieve optimization without specifying how
that control or optimization is achieved.
The Appellant’s limited arguments fail to persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 does not integrate the
judicial exceptions into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 is “directed
to” the recited abstract ideas.
Inventive Concept (Guidance steps (3) and (4))
Turning to steps (3) and (4) of the Guidance, the Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner’s determination that the limitations of claim 1
beyond the abstract idea itself are well understood, routine, and
conventional. The Examiner cites several references in support of the
Examiner’s finding that valves, mixers, aerators, and blowers are well
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

10
understood, routine, and conventional components of wastewater treatment
plants. See Final Act. 5. The Appellant does not meaningfully contend
otherwise. See generally Appeal Br.
On this record, having considered the limitations individually and in
combination, we are not persuaded that any step of claim 1 beyond those
encompassing the abstract idea itself recites subject matter that is anything
other than well understood, routine, and conventional, or that claim 1
otherwise amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas to which it
is directed. We have carefully considered the Appellant’s arguments but are
not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under § 101.
Rejection 2
We summarily affirm the rejection under § 112(b) because the
Appellant states that the rejection is “not appealed.” Appeal Br. 1–2, 4 n.1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8–
16, 18, 20–
24
101 Eligibility 1–4, 6, 8–16, 18, 20–24
1–4, 6, 8–
16, 18, 20–
24
112(b) Indefiniteness 1–4, 6, 8–16, 18, 20–24
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 8–16,
18, 20–24
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2020-002003
Application 15/443,098

11
AFFIRMED