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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 8, 15-16, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 17-18 and 22 are canceled.
Claims 1-16, 19-21 and 23 are pending.
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, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1, and similarly 8 and 15 belong to a statutory.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1, and similarly 8 and 15 recite(s) “A method for locating a line fault in an electrical distribution system, the method comprising:”, “determining a time duration over which an RMS value of the transient current waveform exceeds an electrical current threshold; characterizing, based on the time duration of the transient current waveform and a first time threshold, the transient current waveform as having characteristics consistent with line faults occurring on a feeder line or characteristics consistent with line faults occurring on a lateral line, the first time threshold being set based on a difference between transient current waveform durations of line faults occurring on a feeder line and transient current waveform durations of line faults occurring on a lateral line;”, and “updating an algorithm used to estimate line fault locations based on a correspondence between the actual location of the line fault and the characterizing of whether the line fault likely occurred on either the feeder line or the lateral line.” which are mathematical concepts and/or mental determinations as evidenced by applicants specification (for an example see applicant’s specification 133-135, 145 “computing a weighted average of the likelihood values”). Further, regarding “enabling a determination of an actual location of the line fault” examiner notes that per the applicant’s specification, this is organizing human activity as it amounts to instructing a person to perform the determining, see Fig. 7, 710 of applicant’s specifcation.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “receiving data describing a transient current waveform occurring during a start of the line fault in an electrical distribution line comprising a present feeder line and at least one present lateral line, wherein the data is measured by and received from an electrical current monitoring device within the electrical distribution system;”, “providing, via a service dispatch interface and based on the characterizing, an indication that the line fault likely occurred on one of either the present feeder line or the at least one present lateral line, the indication enabling a determination of an actual location of the line fault;”, and “receiving the actual location of the line fault;” are considered to be data inputting/outputting steps required to use the correlation and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving data describing a transient current waveform occurring during a start of the line fault in an electrical distribution line comprising a present feeder line and at least one present lateral line, wherein the data is measured by and received from an electrical current monitoring device within the electrical distribution system;”, “providing, via a service dispatch interface and based on the characterizing, an indication that the line fault likely occurred on one of either the present feeder line or the at least one present lateral line, the indication enabling a determination of an actual location of the line fault;”, and “receiving the actual location of the line fault;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Further the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claims 3-7, 10-14, 19-20 and 23 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claims 2, 9, 16 and 21 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above. The element of “where the at least one present lateral line provides power to a transformer” and “receiving information about which overcurrent protection devices have reported operating; are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it merely further describes the data/technological environment as part of the data gathering steps required to use the correlation and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception Per MPEP 2106.05(g) as well as the well-understood, routine, conventional elements See MPEP 2106.05(d) and/or a field of use and technological environment See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. regarding applicant’s 101 arguments, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”, thus while the applicant asserts the claims do not recite “mathematical concepts” explicit recitation is not required. Example 38 and 39 are not germane to the current claims. Examiner also notes that the claims do not specify the manner in which “receiving data describing a transient current waveform” is performed and a person could easily read the data off a screen and that would fall within the BRI of the claim, especially in light of “providing by a dispatch interface” i.e. user interface and/or display. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation”.
Further regarding sections A and B, the feedback loop applicant asserts and steps the applicant numerates are not an improvement per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Thus, the claims are not considered to be an improvement as they amount to improving a mathematical algorithm. Examples 40 and 45 are also not similar to the current claims, notably they makes changes to the apparatus/network which is not reflected in the current claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10222409 B2 Method And System For Detecting And Locating Single-phase Ground Fault On Low Current Grounded Power-distribution Network; US 8963557 B2, Systems, Methods, And Apparatus For Locating Possible Fault Locations In An Electrical Power Network, US 20140336959 A1, FAULT LOCATION IN POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights