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 1-2, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 17-18 and 22 are canceled.
Claim 23 is new.
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, claims 1, 8 and 15 belong to statutory categories.
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) “locating a line fault in an electrical distribution system”, “determining a time duration over which an RMS value of the transient current waveform exceeds an electrical current threshold; characterizing, by comparing the time duration of the transient current waveform to a first time threshold, the transient current waveform as having characteristics consistent with line faults occurring a feeder line or characteristics consistent with line faults occurring on a lateral line;”, and “updating an algorithm used to estimate line fault locations based on a correspondence between the determined 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 “directing a physical inspection to determine an actual location of the line fault and perform a needed repair 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 a repair.
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 feeder line and at least one lateral line, wherein the data is measured by and received from an electrical current monitoring device within the electrical distribution system;” and ‘providing… 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 directing a physical inspection to determine an actual location of the line fault and perform a needed repair of the line fault; receiving the determined actual location of the line fault’ are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “a service dispatch interface” and claims 8 and 15 additionally recite “a processor; a memory, communicatively connected to the processor; a data receiver, communicatively connected to the processor and the memory”, “a data processor, communicatively connected to the processor, the memory, and the data receiver, the data processor”, “a computer program product”, and “a non-transient computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
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 feeder line and at least one lateral line, wherein the data is measured by and received from an electrical current monitoring device within the electrical distribution system;” and ‘providing… 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 directing a physical inspection to determine an actual location of the line fault and perform a needed repair of the line fault; receiving the determined actual location of the line fault’ 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). The elements of “a service dispatch interface” and claims 8 and 15 additionally recite “a processor; a memory, communicatively connected to the processor; a data receiver, communicatively connected to the processor and the memory”, “a data processor, communicatively connected to the processor, the memory, and the data receiver, the data processor”, “a computer program product”, and “a non-transient computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith” are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-16, 19-21 and 23 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 1, and similarly 8 and 15, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record Kim (US 2012/0086459 A1) in view of NIEHOFF (US 20160203932 A1) in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious the indication directing a physical inspection to determine an actual location of the line fault and perform a needed repair of the line fault; receiving the determined actual location of the line fault; and updating an algorithm used to estimate line fault locations based on a correspondence between the determined 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 in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 10-15, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding section 1, examiner notes that 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. In addition, 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 “directing a physical inspection to determine an actual location of the line fault and perform a needed repair of the line fault” these are organizing human activity and thus still directed to an abstract idea. Further said physical inspection is being performed by a person, thus is still organizing human activity. The examples cited by the applicant are not considered to be similar to the current claims. Further regarding section A, the “directing a physical inspection to determine an actual location of the line fault and perform a needed repair of the line fault” and “feedback loop” are abstract as cited above, 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. Further regarding section B, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20180013320 A1, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTING GRID ACTIONS TO IMPROVE GRID OUTCOMES; US 20140149101 A1, ELECTRICAL NETWORK MODEL SYNCHRONIZATION; US 20140254053 A1, TRAVELLING-WAVE BASED FAULT PROTECTION OF HIGH-VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES.
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