DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 01/13/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 9 and 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 23-26 are new. Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least a portion of the electric grid" in line(s) 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The anteceding limitation was amended to be "a portion of the electric grid".
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 1-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: Claim recites
defining a graph that represents a portion of the electric grid, the graph including nodes and edges between nodes, wherein: each node represents a component of the electric grid and is associated with respective node data representing electrical properties of the component of the electric grid, and each edge represents a connection between components of the electric grid and is associated with respective edge data representing electrical properties of the connection…
generating, from the simulation results and by an error-correcting model, corrected graph data for an updated version of the model of the electric grid, wherein the error-correcting model is configured to… correct errors in the model of the electric grid based on both the graph data for the model of the electric grid and the information identifying the at least one error
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the defining a graph limitations, mathematical graph operations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. They entail a user deciding which information (processing the graph data and information) to observe, evaluate, and judge, out of a mathematical graph.
As to the limitations "generating, from the simulation results and by an error-correcting model, corrected graph data for an updated version of the model of the electric grid, wherein the error-correcting model is configured to… correct errors in the model of the electric grid based on both the graph data for the model of the electric grid and the information identifying the at least one error", they can be characterized as entailing a user observing, evaluating, judging, opining, i.e., processing information and/or data that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Examiner notes that the claimed invention further reads “21. The method of claim 1, wherein the error-correcting model is configured to process data in a first format”. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0071]… the error correction model 130 can be used for inference to reduce errors in incomplete or inaccurate graphs representing the components of the electric grid. The error correction model 130 processes the input graph data 125 by filling in data gaps and replacing erroneous node and edge data with updated node and edge data…
[0072]… The error correction model 130 processes the input graph data 125 to infer electrical properties of the components of the electric grid'
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations "obtaining a model of an electric grid” and "receive, as input, both the graph data for the model of the electric grid and information identifying the at least one error in the model of the electric grid", they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "simulating operation of the portion of the electric grid as represented by the model of the electric grid using an electric grid simulator to obtain simulation results, the simulation results indicating at least one error in the model of the electric grid", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "verifying accuracy of the corrected graph data by simulating operation of the portion of the electric grid as represented by the updated version of the model of the electric grid using the electric grid simulator", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Transformation of information and/or data is not statutory, because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0047]… The electric grid simulator 110 processes the grid graph 108 to obtain simulation results…
[0049] The electric grid simulator 110 outputs simulation results 112.Simulation results 112 can include, for example, time-varying values of electrical characteristics of the electric grid under simulated operating conditions. In some examples, the simulation results 112 can indicate any errors that occurred during simulation… An error may occur, for example, when the electric grid simulator 110 is unable to obtain simulation results for particular edges and nodes due to the edge data and/or node data being electrically invalid…
[0095] The term "data processing apparatus" refers to data processing hardware and encompasses all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including, by way of example, a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations "verifying accuracy of the corrected graph data by simulating operation of the portion of the electric grid…", the specification reads:
"[0076]… verifying accuracy of the output graph data by processing the output graph data using an electric grid simulator (308). For example, an updated grid graph 140 including the output graph data 135 can be provided to the electric grid simulator"
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claims 25 and 26, Step 2A Prong One: These claims recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above).
Independent claims 25 and 26, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements computer-readable media and a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. They are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, which is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
'[0095] The term "data processing apparatus" refers to data processing hardware and encompasses all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including, by way of example, a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers…
[0098] Computers suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, can be based on general or special purpose microprocessors or both, or any other kind of central processing unit'.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims are substantially drawn to mental processes as their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "5… comparing the second error report to the first error report", "8… determining that a number of errors indicated by the error report is a threshold number of errors or less", “21… wherein the error-correcting model is configured to process data in a first format… converting the graph data from a second format to the first format", and "22… wherein the first format comprises a graph tensor format and the second format comprises a grid graph format", these activities can be characterized as entailing a user observing, evaluating, judging, opining, i.e., processing information and/or data that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind.
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations "2… wherein the information identifying the at least one error that is received as input by the error-correcting model comprises the replacement values", "3… wherein the information identifying the at least one error that is received as input by the error-correcting model comprises the flag values", “4… obtaining a first error report indicating edges and nodes where the at least one error is indicated in the simulation results, wherein the information identifying the at least one error that is received as input by the error-correcting model comprises the first error report", "5… obtaining a second error report indicating edges and nodes where errors are indicated in simulation results for the corrected graph data", and "8… obtaining an error report indicating edges and nodes where errors are indicated in simulation results for the corrected graph data", they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two above).
As to the limitations "17… wherein the error-correcting model comprises a graph neural network model" and "24… wherein the model of the electric grid is executable by the electric grid simulator to simulate the operation of the portion of the electric grid"; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the data gathering limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No reference taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record discloses
claims 1, 25, and 26, "… simulating operation… simulation results indicating… error in the model of the electric grid; generating, from the simulation results and by an error-correcting model, corrected graph data for an updated… model… as input, both the graph data for the model… and information identifying the… error… to correct errors in the model… verifying accuracy of the corrected graph data by simulating operation… by the updated version… model…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine none of these references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 112, the amendment corrected the deficiencies pointed out, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant provided no arguments.
Regarding the rejections under 103, the rejections are rendered moot by the amendment.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016