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 13, 18-19 and 24-32 are pending in this application.
Claim rejections 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on claim rejections 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, filed 5/22/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that pending independent claims 13 are 19 are not directed to a mere mental process or generic data manipulation, but instead recite a specific, distributed validation architecture implemented across multiple physical devices operating within an electrical power grid. This recited subject matter reflects a multi-device interaction model tied to physical measurement devices, not an abstract concept capable of performance in the human mind (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully submits that claims 13 are 19 recite limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). That is, other reciting a “communication interface”, at least one “processor” and a “non-transitory memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Limitations “triggering/ performing”, “depending”, “causing” and “triggering” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper comparing a first and a second measurement datasets, based on a result of the comparison, storing in a database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) a result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset, checking the variable and generating a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets. For example, an electrical technician usually goes to a house or a building for manually recording an electric meter, comparing that recorded value with other values, then deciding an appropriated action. Therefore, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that the claims improve the technical reliability of measurement systems in a power grid (Remarks, page 12).
Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP 2106.05(a) also recites that:
“Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
…
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; …” (Emphasis added)
In fact, the claims recite limitations of obtaining a first and second measurement datasets from a first sensor and a second sensor, comparing a first and a second measurement datasets, based on a result of the comparison, storing in a database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) a result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset, checking the variable and generating a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets. These limitations amount to gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques. Therefore, the claims are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Applicant argues that Rane fails to teach “causing the first sensor to check the variable” and “triggering a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets.” (Remarks, page 17)
Examiner respectfully submits that Rane discloses “If the result matches an expected condition (decision 512), the operation returns. If the result does not match an expected condition (decision 512), the system can optionally generate, by the first entity or any entity which determines the unexpected condition, a notification of the unexpected condition (operation 514). Determining the unexpected condition is determining that the result of the executed smart contract does not match an expected condition. The system can subsequently perform, by any entity, a remedial action based on the unexpected condition (operation 516).”([0046])
Examiner interprets that the system, by the first entity or any entity, determines/checks if the result (of the first reading and the second reading) matches an expected condition or not, is similar to “causing the first sensor to check the variable”. Furthermore, examiner interprets that the system can subsequently perform a remedial action based on the unexpected condition, is similar to “triggering a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets.”
Other applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 13, 18-19 and 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 13 and 27:
Step 1:
Claim 13 recites “A computer-implemented method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 27 recites “A device”. The claim recites the device comprising a communication interface, at least one processor and a non-transitory memory storing program code and therefore is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 13 and 27 recite the limitations “triggering”, “depending”, “causing” and “triggering” which specifically recite “triggering a comparison between the first and second measurement datasets;” “depending on a result of the comparison, selectively triggering at least one validation measure for at least one of the first measurement dataset or the second measurement dataset, the at least one validation measure being implemented at the distributed database, and the at least one validation measure comprising storing in the distributed database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) a result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset;” and “causing the first sensor to check the variable; wherein the at least one validation measure comprises triggering a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “communication interface”, at least one “processor” and a “non-transitory memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “triggering”, “depending “, “causing” and “triggering” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper comparing a first and a second measurement datasets, based on a result of the comparison, storing in a database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) a result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset, checking the variable and generating a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 13 and 27 recite the additional elements “obtaining a first measurement dataset from a first sensor detecting electrical characteristics of an electrical load connected to the electrical power grid and storing the first measurement dataset in the distributed database;” and “obtaining a second measurement dataset from a second sensor detecting operational characteristics of the electrical load and storing the second measurement dataset in the distributed database;” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using a “communication interface”, at least one “processor” and a “non-transitory memory” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is dependent on the claim 13 and includes all the limitations of claim 13. Therefore, claim 18 recites the same abstract idea of claim 13. The claim also recites the additional element “the comparison is based on a predefined agreement stored in the distributed database and indicative of a metric of the comparison” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 19 and 28:
Step 1:
Claim 19 recites “A computer-implemented method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 28 recites “A device”. The claim recites the device comprising a communication interface, at least one processor and a non-transitory memory storing program code and therefore is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 19 and 28 recite the limitations “performing”, “depending”, “causing” and “triggering” which specifically recite “performing, at the second sensor, a comparison between the first and second measurement datasets;” “depending on a result of the comparison, selectively triggering at least one validation measure for at least one of the first measurement dataset or the second measurement dataset, the at least one validation measure being implemented at the distributed database, and the at least one validation measure comprising storing in the distributed database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) the result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset;” and causing the first sensor to check the variable; wherein the at least one validation measure comprises triggering a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “communication interface”, at least one “processor” and a “non-transitory memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “performing”, “depending “, “causing” and “triggering” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper comparing a first and a second measurement datasets, based on a result of the comparison, storing in a database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) a result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset, checking the variable and generating a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 19 and 28 recite the additional elements “obtaining a first measurement dataset from a first sensor detecting at least one electrical characteristic of an electrical load connected to the electrical power grid and storing the first measurement data set in a distributed database;” and “capturing, at a second sensor, a second measurement dataset detecting at least one operational characteristic of the electrical load and storing the second measurement data set in the distributed database;” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using a “communication interface”, at least one “processor” and a “non-transitory memory” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 24 is dependent on the claim 19 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 24 recites the same abstract idea of claim 19. The claim also recites the additional element “the comparison is based on a predefined agreement indicative of a metric of the comparison” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 is dependent on the claim 24 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 25 recites the same abstract idea of claim 19. The claim also recites the additional element “the metric is based on at least one of (i) a time-shift between capturing the at least one electrical characteristic and capturing the at least one operational characteristic, and (ii) a tolerance range between the first and second measurement datasets” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 is dependent on the claim 19 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 26 recites the same abstract idea of claim 19. The claim also recites the additional element “the at least one electrical characteristic is different from the at least one operational characteristic” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 29 is dependent on the claim 13 and includes all the limitations of claim 13. Therefore, claim 29 recites the same abstract idea of claim 13. The claim also recites the additional element “the stored variable comprises a deviation value between the first measurement dataset and the second measurement dataset” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 29.
Claim 31 is dependent on the claim 19 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 31 recites the same abstract idea of claim 19. The claim also recites the additional element “checking the variable by the first sensor comprises retrieving the stored variable from the distributed database” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 is dependent on the claim 30 and includes all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 32 recites the same abstract idea of claim 19. The claim also recites the additional element “checking the variable by the first sensor comprises validating the deviation value against a threshold” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13, 18-19 and 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rane (US 2019/0087571) in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0046975, hereinafter “Jones”).
Regarding claim 13, Rane teaches A computer-implemented method for validating measurement datasets from sensors in an electrical power grid utilizing a distributed database stored in non-transitory memory (Rane, [0002]: discussing about a cyber-physical system can include control systems and infrastructures for, e.g., an electric power grid; [0047], [0051] and Fig. 6: discussing about storage device 608 can store data 632. Data 632 can include any data that is required as input or that is generated as output by the methods and/or processes described in this disclosure.), comprising:
obtaining a first measurement dataset from a first sensor detecting electrical characteristics of an electrical load connected to the electrical power grid and storing the first measurement dataset in the distributed database (Rane, [0002]: discussing about a cyber-physical system can include control systems and infrastructures for, e.g., an electric power grid; [0024]: The block chain allows each stakeholder to write data received from devices in the control system (e.g., sensors in an electric power plant). [0042]: FIG. 4 presents a flow chart 400 illustrating a method by a distributed entity for facilitating detection of attacks in a cyber-physical system, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. During operation, the system receives, by a first entity of a plurality of entities, a first reading from a first set of sensors of a cyber-physical system via a first network, wherein the first sensors are operating on the first network (operation 402).);
obtaining a second measurement dataset from a second sensor detecting operational characteristics of the electrical load and storing the second measurement dataset in the distributed database (Rane, [0002]: discussing about a cyber-physical system can include control systems and infrastructures for, e.g., an electric power grid; [0024]: discussing about writing data received from devices in the control system (e.g., sensors in an electric power plant); [0042]: The system receives, by the first entity, a second reading from a second set of sensors of the cyber-physical system via a second network, wherein the second set is a set of redundant sensors for the first sensors, wherein the second set of sensors are operating on a second network, and wherein the second network includes security measures which prevent access by any external entity or any of the plurality of entities (operation 404). The second network is a redundant network for the first network.);
triggering a comparison between the first and second measurement datasets (Rane, [0043]:The system executes, by the other entities, the smart contract based on the first reading and the second reading (operation 410), and the operation continues as described at Label A of FIG. 5. [0045]: The system can also determine if the result of the executed smart contract matches an expected condition (decision 512). The expected condition can be based on, e.g.: receiving the first reading and the second reading within a predetermined interval; whether the first reading and the second reading are equal; whether the first reading and the second reading are within a predetermined range; whether a function performed based on the first reading and the second reading yields a result within a predetermined range; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a same physical quantity; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a different physical quantity; and a change in device settings, firmware, or software associated with the first sensors and the second sensors.); and
causing the first sensor to check the variable (Rane, [0046]: If the result matches an expected condition (decision 512), the operation returns. If the result does not match an expected condition (decision 512), the system can optionally generate, by the first entity or any entity which determines the unexpected condition, a notification of the unexpected condition (operation 514).);
wherein the at least one validation measure comprises triggering a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets (Rane, [0046]: The system can subsequently perform, by any entity, a remedial action based on the unexpected condition (operation 516).).
Rane does not explicitly teach depending on a result of the comparison, selectively triggering at least one validation measure for at least one of the first measurement dataset or the second measurement dataset, the at least one validation measure being implemented at the distributed database, and the at least one validation measure comprising storing in the distributed database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) a result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset.
Jones teaches depending on a result of the comparison, selectively triggering at least one validation measure for at least one of the first measurement dataset or the second measurement dataset, the at least one validation measure being implemented at the distributed database, and the at least one validation measure comprising storing in the distributed database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) a result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset (Jones, [0062]: The process (e.g. the item management module) then compares the detected data from the received sensor data to a plurality of stored profiles corresponding to the identified plurality of candidate items at operation 606. The process determines whether the detected data corresponds to at least one of the stored profiles in the plurality of stored profiles at operation 608. If the detected data does not correspond to a stored profile, the detected data is stored and marked for evaluation at operation 610.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system of Rane with the teaching about the sensor-based management of Jones because it would reduce error rates and faster processing. It also contributes to increased inventory environment management efficiency (Jones, [0015]).
Regarding claim 18, Rane in view of Jones teaches wherein the comparison is based on a predefined agreement stored in the distributed database and indicative of a metric of the comparison (Rane, [0045]: The system can also determine if the result of the executed smart contract matches an expected condition (decision 512). The expected condition can be based on, e.g.: receiving the first reading and the second reading within a predetermined interval; whether the first reading and the second reading are equal; whether the first reading and the second reading are within a predetermined range; whether a function performed based on the first reading and the second reading yields a result within a predetermined range; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a same physical quantity; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a different physical quantity; and a change in device settings, firmware, or software associated with the first sensors and the second sensors. Jones, [0062]: The process (e.g. the item management module) then compares the detected data from the received sensor data to a plurality of stored profiles corresponding to the identified plurality of candidate items at operation 606.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system of Rane with the teaching about the sensor-based management of Jones because it would reduce error rates and faster processing. It also contributes to increased inventory environment management efficiency (Jones, [0015]).
Regarding claim 19, Rane teaches A computer-implemented method for validating measurement datasets from sensors in an electrical power grid utilizing a distributed database stored in non-transitory memory (Rane, [0002]: discussing about a cyber-physical system can include control systems and infrastructures for, e.g., an electric power grid; [0047], [0051] and Fig. 6: discussing about storage device 608 can store data 632. Data 632 can include any data that is required as input or that is generated as output by the methods and/or processes described in this disclosure.), comprising:
obtaining a first measurement dataset from a first sensor detecting at least one electrical characteristic of an electrical load connected to the electrical power grid and storing the first measurement data set in a distributed database (Rane, [0002]: discussing about a cyber-physical system can include control systems and infrastructures for, e.g., an electric power grid; [0024]: The block chain allows each stakeholder to write data received from devices in the control system (e.g., sensors in an electric power plant). [0042]: FIG. 4 presents a flow chart 400 illustrating a method by a distributed entity for facilitating detection of attacks in a cyber-physical system, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. During operation, the system receives, by a first entity of a plurality of entities, a first reading from a first set of sensors of a cyber-physical system via a first network, wherein the first sensors are operating on the first network (operation 402).);
capturing, at a second sensor, a second measurement dataset detecting at least one operational characteristic of the electrical load and storing the second measurement data set in the distributed database (Rane, [0002]: discussing about a cyber-physical system can include control systems and infrastructures for, e.g., an electric power grid; [0024]: discussing about writing data received from devices in the control system (e.g., sensors in an electric power plant); [0042]: The system receives, by the first entity, a second reading from a second set of sensors of the cyber-physical system via a second network, wherein the second set is a set of redundant sensors for the first sensors, wherein the second set of sensors are operating on a second network, and wherein the second network includes security measures which prevent access by any external entity or any of the plurality of entities (operation 404). The second network is a redundant network for the first network.);
performing, at the second sensor, a comparison between the first and second measurement datasets (Rane, [0043]:The system executes, by the other entities, the smart contract based on the first reading and the second reading (operation 410), and the operation continues as described at Label A of FIG. 5. [0045]: The system can also determine if the result of the executed smart contract matches an expected condition (decision 512). The expected condition can be based on, e.g.: receiving the first reading and the second reading within a predetermined interval; whether the first reading and the second reading are equal; whether the first reading and the second reading are within a predetermined range; whether a function performed based on the first reading and the second reading yields a result within a predetermined range; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a same physical quantity; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a different physical quantity; and a change in device settings, firmware, or software associated with the first sensors and the second sensors.);
causing the first sensor to check the variable (Rane, [0046]: If the result matches an expected condition (decision 512), the operation returns. If the result does not match an expected condition (decision 512), the system can optionally generate, by the first entity or any entity which determines the unexpected condition, a notification of the unexpected condition (operation 514).);
wherein the at least one validation measure comprises triggering a settlement process based on a deviation between the first and second measurement datasets (Rane, [0046]: The system can subsequently perform, by any entity, a remedial action based on the unexpected condition (operation 516).).
Rane does not explicitly teach depending on a result of the comparison, selectively triggering at least one validation measure for at least one of the first measurement dataset or the second measurement dataset, the at least one validation measure being implemented at the distributed database, and the at least one validation measure comprising storing in the distributed database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) the result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset;
Jones teaches depending on a result of the comparison, selectively triggering at least one validation measure for at least one of the first measurement dataset or the second measurement dataset, the at least one validation measure being implemented at the distributed database, and the at least one validation measure comprising storing in the distributed database a variable indicative of at least one of (i) the result of the comparison, (ii) the first measurement dataset and (iii) the second measurement dataset (Jones, [0062]: The process (e.g. the item management module) then compares the detected data from the received sensor data to a plurality of stored profiles corresponding to the identified plurality of candidate items at operation 606. The process determines whether the detected data corresponds to at least one of the stored profiles in the plurality of stored profiles at operation 608. If the detected data does not correspond to a stored profile, the detected data is stored and marked for evaluation at operation 610.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system of Rane with the teaching about the sensor-based management of Jones because it would reduce error rates and faster processing. It also contributes to increased inventory environment management efficiency (Jones, [0015]).
Claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 18.
Regarding claim 25, Rane in view of Jones teaches wherein the metric is based on at least one of (i) a time-shift between capturing the at least one electrical characteristic and capturing the at least one operational characteristic, and (ii) a tolerance range between the first and second measurement datasets (Rane, [0043]: discussing about the expected condition can be based on, e.g.: receiving the first reading and the second reading within a predetermined interval; whether the first reading and the second reading are equal; whether the first reading and the second reading are within a predetermined range; whether a function performed based on the first reading and the second reading yields a result within a predetermined range…).
Regarding claim 26, Rane in view of Jones teaches wherein the at least one electrical characteristic is different from the at least one operational characteristic (Rane, [0002]: A cyber-physical system can include control systems and infrastructures for, e.g., an electric power grid, hydroelectric power plants, building environmental control systems, robotics systems, and aircraft systems. [0029]: Environment 100 can include an industrial plant, such as a power plant 120, including a cooling tower 122, flue-gas stacks 124, and a containment building 126. Building 126 can include physical equipment measured by primary sensors 130.1-130.5 which operate on a first network 102, and by redundant sensors 140.1-140.5 which operate on a second network 104.).
Claim 27 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 13. Rane also teaches A device for validating measurement datasets from sensors in an electrical power grid, comprising: a communication interface (Rane, [0030]:The plurality of distributed entities may communicate with each other either directly or via another distributed entity.); and at least one processor; a non-transitory memory storing program code which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method ([0047]: Computer system 602 includes a processor 604, a memory 606, and a storage device 608. Memory 606 can include a volatile memory (e.g., RAM) that serves as a managed memory, and can be used to store one or more memory pools.).
Claim 28 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 19. Rane also teaches A device for validating measurement datasets from sensors in an electrical power grid, comprising: a communication interface (Rane, [0030]:The plurality of distributed entities may communicate with each other either directly or via another distributed entity.); and at least one processor; a non-transitory memory storing program code which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method ([0047]: Computer system 602 includes a processor 604, a memory 606, and a storage device 608. Memory 606 can include a volatile memory (e.g., RAM) that serves as a managed memory, and can be used to store one or more memory pools.).
Regarding claim 29, Rane in view of Jones teaches wherein the stored variable comprises a deviation value between the first measurement dataset and the second measurement dataset (Rane, [0045]: The system can also determine if the result of the executed smart contract matches an expected condition (decision 512). The expected condition can be based on, e.g.: receiving the first reading and the second reading within a predetermined interval; whether the first reading and the second reading are equal; whether the first reading and the second reading are within a predetermined range; whether a function performed based on the first reading and the second reading yields a result within a predetermined range; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a same physical quantity; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a different physical quantity; and a change in device settings, firmware, or software associated with the first sensors and the second sensors.).
Claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, Rane in view of Jones teaches wherein checking the variable by the first sensor comprises retrieving the stored variable from the distributed database (Jones, [0063]: The process obtains transaction data associated with the candidate item at operation 614.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control system of Rane with the teaching about the sensor-based management of Jones because it would reduce error rates and faster processing. It also contributes to increased inventory environment management efficiency (Jones, [0015]).
Regarding claim 32, Rane in view of Jones teaches wherein checking the variable by the first sensor comprises validating the deviation value against a threshold (Rane, [0045]: The system can also determine if the result of the executed smart contract matches an expected condition (decision 512). The expected condition can be based on, e.g.: receiving the first reading and the second reading within a predetermined interval; whether the first reading and the second reading are equal; whether the first reading and the second reading are within a predetermined range; whether a function performed based on the first reading and the second reading yields a result within a predetermined range; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a same physical quantity; whether the first reading and the second reading indicate a different physical quantity; and a change in device settings, firmware, or software associated with the first sensors and the second sensors.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ordanis (US 2015/0355245) discloses that data accumulated by the nodal junction is used for analysis of wave patterns to detect anomalies in the local electrical network and/or loads connected to the local electrical network. Anomalies can be detected in various ways, including: comparison of data with historical data acquired from the local node sensors; comparison of data with known wave pattern profiles for similar loads; and comparison of data with data acquired from local node sensors at other locations.
Schoenfelder (US 4,103,493) discloses that electrical impulse sensors 98 and 100 sense the current in each line and sends signals back to the load monitor 92. Load monitor 92 compares the signals from sensors 98 and 100 and if the current in sensor 100 is greater than the current load in sensor 98, load monitor 92 opens contact 88 and closes contact 90.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights