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 03/13/2026 has been received and considered. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-19 and 21 are presented for examination.
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 1-19 and 21 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 system (system = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
partition a section of the power distribution grid into a plurality of sub-sections based on loads distributed within the section of the power distribution grid; generate a plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections based on load distribution within the plurality of sub-sections and an unscented Kalman Filter model dedicated for each sub-section; and generate an aggregate state estimate for the section of the power distribution grid based on an aggregate of the plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections and a boundary consensus between the plurality of sub-sections from a previous state estimation of the section of the power distribution grid
Claim 1 is substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. 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 limitations "partition a section of the power distribution grid into a plurality of sub-sections based on loads distributed within the section of the power distribution grid", mathematical graph operations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“a partitioning algorithm may be used to divide the overall grid into partitions such that the number of loads in each partition is within an acceptable min-max range… The number of loads connected to each node may be used as an identifier of the node within a view / map. The goal is to partition the graph such that total nodes weights (i.e. the number of loads) are distributed almost equally and within the min-max range" (see page 32, 2nd paragraph).
As to the “generate… estimates” limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, estimating is a mental concept. Mathematical estimating operations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. See for example in the Specification (see page 29, 2nd paragraph to page 30, 2nd paragraph):
PNG
media_image1.png
185
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
46
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
279
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements a computing system comprising a memory configured to store load data from a power distribution grid and a processor, which provide conventional computer implementation.
As to the limitations "display data about the aggregate state estimate”, they are considered generic displaying. Displaying has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "via a user interface", a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
As to the limitations "generate an alarm in response to detection of an instability in the power distribution grid based on the aggregate state estimate", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (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, the claim recites the additional elements a computing system comprising a memory configured to store load data from a power distribution grid and a processor. 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. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification: "The computing system may include a web server, a cloud platform, a personal computer, a mobile device, a control center, or the like" (see page 35, last paragraph).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim recites displaying at a high level of generality; and therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, and the limitations “via a user interface”, a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. As to the limitations "user interface", the term is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification. GUIs have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a).
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 "generate an alarm" and "detection of an instability in the power distribution grid", the limitations are so broad that little is known about how they are performed. The specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
'Large phase angle differences between two distant PMUs can indicate the relative stress across the grid, even if the PMUs are not directly connected to each other by a single transmission line. This phase angle difference can be used to identify power grid instability, and a PMU can be used to generate an angle disturbance alarm (e.g., angle difference alarm) when it detects a phase angle difference'
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).
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional element computer readable storage medium is rejected below:
Independent claim 15 Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional element computer readable storage medium, it is interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). 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).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two: As to the limitations "5/12/19… receive voltage estimates, power flow estimates, and variance estimates of the common boundary from each of the two adjacent sub-sections during an iteration of a state estimate for the section of the power distribution grid“, these limitations 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. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "21… wherein the instability in the power distribution grid is based on at least one of: an angle disturbance, a frequency disturbance, an oscillation disturbance", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
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, claims recite 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 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 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).
As to claims 15-19, they are rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "non-transitory computer readable storage medium" to include non-statutory matter. See page 38, 1st paragraph (underline emphasis added): "the non-transitory computer-readable media may be, but is not limited to, a fixed drive, diskette, optical disk, magnetic tape, flash memory, external drive, semiconductor memory such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and/or any other non-transitory transmitting and/or receiving medium such as the Internet, cloud storage, the Internet of Things (IoT), or other communication network or link". The word "storage" is insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between non-transitory media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a non-statutory form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rana et al., (Rana hereinafter), "Renewable microgrid state estimation using the Internet of Things communication network", taken in view of Ghahremani et al., (Ghahremani hereinafter), "Online state estimation of a synchronous generator using unscented Kalman filter from phasor measurements units", and further in view of Rana et al., (Rana(1) hereinafter), "Kalman filter based microgrid state estimation using the internet of things communication network".
As to claim 1, Rana discloses… a memory configured to store load data from a power distribution grid (see "Snapshot of the system" computer in Fig. 5; "observation information by the wireless sensor networks (WSN)… is transmitted to the nearby base station (BS) as shown in Fig. 5" in page 825, col. 2, next to last paragraph)… partition a section of the power distribution grid into a plurality of sub-sections based on loads distributed within the section of the power distribution grid (see "sub-sections" as "DERs", "renewable microgrid incorporating multiple DERs is modelled as a continuous linear state space model" in page 824, 2nd paragraph; "model of interconnected DERs… as shown in Fig 4" in page 825, 3rd paragraph); generate a plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections based on load distribution within the plurality of sub-sections and an unscented Kalman Filter model – see in page 826, col. 1, last paragraph:
PNG
media_image4.png
174
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
… and generate an aggregate state estimate for the section of the power distribution grid based on an aggregate of the plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections and a boundary consensus between the plurality of sub-sections from a previous state estimation of the section of the power distribution grid (see "aggregate state estimate" as "predicted distribution of the measurement which is a Gaussian", "Based on the KF steps, the energy management system can obtain the predicted distribution of the measurement which is a Gaussian distributed with the expectation given by Eq. (9)" in page 826, col. 2, 2nd paragraph; "The discrete time KF is a set of recursive mathematical equations that provides an efficient recursive means to estimate the state of a process… The KF operates recursively on streams of the noisy measurers to produce a statistically optimal estimate of the underlying microgrid system states" in page 826, col. 1, last paragraph); and display data about the aggregate state estimate (see "simulation results as shown in Figs. 8 to 11" in page 827, 1st paragraph)…
Rana does not disclose, but in a NPL cited by Rana, Ghahremani discloses a computing system and a processor (see page 1103, IV. MATLAB IMPLEMENTATION; "By running the Simulink file and receiving the signals from UKF block inputs, the block creates the outputs based on its internal commands" in page 1107, last paragraph)… unscented (see "applied the unscented Kalman filter (UKF) to estimating and predicting the states of a synchronous machine", page 1099, Abstract)… via a user interface (see "Estimated Output" in "Fig. 4 Implementation of UKF algorithm using the embedded MATLAB function block as the UKF estimator", page 1103, IV. MATLAB IMPLEMENTATION AND SIMULATION RESULTS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ghahremani with Rana, because Ghahremani points out that "[t]he UKF algorithm propagates the pdf of a random variable in a simple and effective way and is accurate up to the second order in estimating the mean and covariance" (see page 1099, Abstract), and as a result, Ghahremani reports that "the proposed online state estimator… uses the UKF algorithm to generate the estimated states from the available signals obtained from a PMU, which is assumed to be installed in the substation of a power plant. The benefits of the UKF over the extended Kalman filter (EKF) result from the fact that in the UKF method, there is no linearization step in the algorithm" (see page 1100, 1st paragraph).
Rana and Ghahremani do not disclose, but in a NPL cited by Rana, Rana(1) discloses (see "the proposed KF is able to estimate the PCC state voltages properly and it needs few iterations to track the original states" in page 503, next to last paragraph) dedicated for each sub-section (see "four DERs in which the system state is a four-dimensional vector. Each DER is connected to the IEEE 4-bus distributed systems operated as an island mode" in page 503, col. 1, last paragraph; "DERs are connected into the main… smart grid network at the points of common coupling (PCCs). Each DER connected to the bus and it needs to control the PCC voltage to keep it reference values" in page 502, 4th paragraph)… generate an alarm in response to detection of an instability in the power distribution grid based on the aggregate state estimate (see "control the voltage level, monitor the system performance… analyze the malfunction of both the monitoring system and the grid" in "With the reliable SE result, we can control the voltage level, monitor the system performance, find out the optimal meter placement and analyze the malfunction of both the monitoring system and the grid" in page 501, next to last paragraph).
About Examiner's interpretation of "generate an alarm in response to detection of an instability in the power distribution grid based on the aggregate state estimate" as Rana(1)'s "control the voltage level, monitor the system performance… analyze the malfunction of both the monitoring system and the grid", little is known about how the limitations "generate an alarm" and "detection of an instability in the power distribution grid" are performed. The specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
'Large phase angle differences between two distant PMUs can indicate the relative stress across the grid, even if the PMUs are not directly connected to each other by a single transmission line. This phase angle difference can be used to identify power grid instability, and a PMU can be used to generate an angle disturbance alarm (e.g., angle difference alarm) when it detects a phase angle difference'
Ghahremani discloses a PMU (see "WAMAC system using phasor measurement units (PMUs), on the other hand, enables control systems to have an accurate picture of the power system both synchronously and in a precise sample time. Using wide-area measurements from PMUs installed on the generator buses, new dynamic state estimators could generate the dynamic states of a power system, e.g., generator speed and rotor angles, which could next be used in various advanced control methods" in page 1099, col. 2, 2nd paragraph).
Rana, Ghahremani, and Rana(1) are analogous art because they are related to Kalman Filter estimation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rana(1) with Rana and Ghahremani, because Rana(1) discloses that "the smart control centre feels the requirement of a robust and scalable technique for state estimation (SE) that allows continuous and accurate wide-area real-time monitoring of power system operation and customer utilization of smart grid… the goals and ideas of such intelligent energy management systems are parallel to those of the internet of things (IoT), which can exploit reasonable security and privacy of distributed energy resources (DERs) messages, seamless interoperability and far-reaching connectivity" (see page 501, col. 1, next to last paragraph), and as a result, Rana(1) reports that "[w]ith the reliable SE result, we can control the voltage level, monitor the system performance, find out the optimal meter placement and analyze the malfunction of both the monitoring system and the grid" (see page 501, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 2, Rana discloses wherein the processor is configured to partition the section of the power distribution grid into a plurality of non-overlapping sub-sections that each include a unique subset of loads on the power distribution grid (see "Fig. 4. Four DERs are connected to the power network" in page 825).
As to claim 3, Rana does not disclose, but in a NPL cited by Rana, Ghahremani discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate the plurality of state estimates via a plurality of local unscented Kalman Filter estimators, respectively, which are computed based on local state and power measurements of the plurality of sub-sections (see "Abstract… applied the unscented Kalman filter (UKF) to estimating and predicting the states of a synchronous machine" in page 1099).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ghahremani with Rana, because Ghahremani points out that "[t]he UKF algorithm propagates the pdf of a random variable in a simple and effective way and is accurate up to the second order in estimating the mean and covariance" (see page 1099, Abstract), and as a result, Ghahremani reports that "the proposed online state estimator… uses the UKF algorithm to generate the estimated states from the available signals obtained from a PMU, which is assumed to be installed in the substation of a power plant. The benefits of the UKF over the extended Kalman filter (EKF) result from the fact that in the UKF method, there is no linearization step in the algorithm" (see page 1100, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 4, Rana discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute a consensus process between two adjacent sub-sections in the power distribution grid which share a common boundary (see "Each DER is connected to the IEEE 4-bus distributed systems operated as an island mode" in page 826, last paragraph).
As to claim 5, Rana discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive voltage estimates, power flow estimates, and variance estimates of the common boundary from each of the two adjacent sub-sections during an iteration of a state estimate for the section of the power distribution grid (see "from… adjacent sub-sections during an iteration" as k=k+1 KF step (feedback loop) in page 826, col. 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
784
453
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Rana discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine a mean value of the received voltage and power flow estimates of the iteration of the state estimate and set a pseudo voltage value and pseudo variance value of the common boundary to be used during a state estimate of the section of the power distribution grid during a next iteration of the state estimate for the section of the power distribution grid (see "mean value" in predicted distribution of the measurement which is a Gaussian, "Based on the KF steps, the energy management system can obtain the predicted distribution of the measurement which is a Gaussian distributed with the expectation given by Eq. (9) and the covariance matrix given by Eq. (10)" in page 826, col. 2, 2nd paragraph).
As to claim 7, Rana discloses wherein the processor is configured to partition the power distribution grid such that each sub-section from among the plurality of sub-sections of the power distribution grid includes less than a predetermined threshold of loads (see "It is assumed that four DERs are modelled as voltage sources" in page 825, 3rd paragraph).
As to claim 15, Rana discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (see "Snapshot of the system" computer in Fig. 5; "observation information by the wireless sensor networks (WSN)… is transmitted to the nearby base station (BS) as shown in Fig. 5" in page 825, col. 2, next to last paragraph)… partitioning a section of a power distribution grid into a plurality of sub-sections based on loads distributed within the section of the power distribution grid (see "sub-sections" as "DERs", "renewable microgrid incorporating multiple DERs is modelled as a continuous linear state space model" in page 824, 2nd paragraph; "model of interconnected DERs… as shown in Fig 4" in page 825, 3rd paragraph); generating a plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections based on load distribution within the plurality of sub-sections and – see in page 826, col. 1, last paragraph:
PNG
media_image4.png
174
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; and generating an aggregate state estimate for the section of the power distribution grid based on an aggregate of the plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections and a boundary consensus between the plurality of sub-sections from a previous state estimation of the section of the power distribution grid (see "aggregate state estimate" as "predicted distribution of the measurement which is a Gaussian", "Based on the KF steps, the energy management system can obtain the predicted distribution of the measurement which is a Gaussian distributed with the expectation given by Eq. (9)" in page 826, col. 2, 2nd paragraph; "The discrete time KF is a set of recursive mathematical equations that provides an efficient recursive means to estimate the state of a process… The KF operates recursively on streams of the noisy measurers to produce a statistically optimal estimate of the underlying microgrid system states" in page 826, col. 1, last paragraph); displaying data about the aggregate state estimate (see "simulation results as shown in Figs. 8 to 11" in page 827, 1st paragraph)…
Rana does not disclose, but in a NPL cited by Rana, Ghahremani discloses which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising (see page 1103, IV. MATLAB IMPLEMENTATION; "By running the Simulink file and receiving the signals from UKF block inputs, the block creates the outputs based on its internal commands" in page 1107, last paragraph)… unscented (see "applied the unscented Kalman filter (UKF) to estimating and predicting the states of a synchronous machine", page 1099, Abstract)… via a user interface (see "Estimated Output" in "Fig. 4 Implementation of UKF algorithm using the embedded MATLAB function block as the UKF estimator", page 1103, IV. MATLAB IMPLEMENTATION AND SIMULATION RESULTS)
Rana and Ghahremani do not disclose, but in a NPL cited by Rana, Rana(1) discloses generating an alarm in response to detection of an instability in the power distribution grid based on the aggregate state estimate (see "control the voltage level, monitor the system performance… analyze the malfunction of both the monitoring system and the grid" in "With the reliable SE result, we can control the voltage level, monitor the system performance, find out the optimal meter placement and analyze the malfunction of both the monitoring system and the grid" in page 501, next to last paragraph).
About Examiner's interpretation of "generate an alarm in response to detection of an instability in the power distribution grid based on the aggregate state estimate" as Rana(1)'s "control the voltage level, monitor the system performance… analyze the malfunction of both the monitoring system and the grid", (see Independent claim 1 rejection above).
As to claims 8-14 and 16-19, these claims recite a method and a computer-readable medium performed by the system of claims 1-7. Rana discloses "a Kalman filter based state estimation method" (see page 823, Abstract) performed by the system that teaches claims 1-7. Therefore, claims 8-14 and 16-19 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
As to claim 21, Rana does not disclose, but in a NPL cited by Rana, Ghahremani discloses wherein the instability in the power distribution grid is based on at least one of: an angle disturbance, a frequency disturbance, an oscillation disturbance (see "measurement set is composed of the bus voltage magnitude and angle, as well as the line and injection currents magnitudes and angles" in page 1101, next to last paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Examiner invites Applicant to use the Specification of record in the present Application and not any other publication. The MPEP reads "evaluating the specification… if the specification sets forth… described in the specification", see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) or 2106.05(a), and does not read the U.S. Pre–Grant publication or any other publication.
Regarding the Specification objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 8, last paragraph to page 11, 2nd paragraph):
‘… the features of the independent claims, at least as now amended, cannot be considered as falling within the enumerated Mental Processes grouping, at least because the claimed subject matter is both not performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, the claims are directed to a process for generating a state estimation for a power distribution grid. The sheer scale of a power distribution grid with tens of thousands or more nodes and varying loads imposes a fundamental limitation in gathering the necessary measurements in the grid and estimating all unknown states. For example, the IEEE 8500 node reference grid has approximately 1200 unknown loads with a corresponding 2400 unknown active and reactive powers to estimate for a single feeder. This scale also makes it a challenge for other centralized approaches. See, e.g., para. [0057] of Applicant's specification. This is not something that is performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the features of the independent claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Prong One…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05 Particular Machine [R-07.2022] (b)… a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu2… See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC3… (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept)’
‘2106.05 Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (d)…(II)… The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
456
‘2106.04(b) Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena & Products of Nature [R-07.2022], III. MENTAL PROCESSES… A. A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process… Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: • a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites, SiRF… B. A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson… (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys… (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper")'.
SiRF7 Tech. reads (bold emphasis added):
‘A GPS receiver is a machine and is integral to each of the claims at issue. Claim 1 of the ’801 patent is expressly directed in its preamble to “calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver.” ’801 patent col.12 ll.28-29. It also refers to “computing absolute position” by updating an “estimate of position of the GPS receiver,” providing an estimate of the time at which a GPS receiver receives a plurality of satellite signals, and computing the position “of the GPS receiver.” Id. col.12 ll. 28-40. Further, claim 1 requires “pseudoranges” that estimate the distance from “the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites.” Id. col.12 ll.31-32. Pseudoranges, which are the distances or estimated distances between satellites and a GPS receiver, can exist only with respect to a particular GPS receiver that receives the satellite signals. Claim 1 of the ’187 patent is similarly tied to a GPS receiver. It requires the estimation of “states” that are “associated with a satellite signal receiver,” and the formation of a “dynamic model… to compute [the] position of the satellite signal receiver.” See ’187 patent col.20 ll.46-54. It is clear that the methods at issue could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver; indeed without a GPS receiver it would be impossible to generate pseudoranges or to determine the position of the GPS receiver whose position is the precise goal of the claims… there is no evidence here that the calculations here can be performed entirely in the human mind. Here, as described, the use of a GPS receiver is essential to the operation of the claimed methods. In conclusion, we hold that the claims at issue are properly directed to patentable subject matter as they explicitly require the use of a particular machine (a GPS receiver) and could not be performed without the use of such a receiver’.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because Applicant presents no evidence that the claim limitations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101… Step 2A, Prong One above) cannot practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, or that the claim limitations explicitly require the use of a particular machine, a GPS receiver as in SIRF for example (see supra).
Claims do not read "a power distribution grid with tens of thousands or more nodes and varying loads… IEEE 8500 node reference grid has approximately 1200 unknown loads with a corresponding 2400 unknown active and reactive powers”, as argued. Claims do read "a power distribution grid". Applicant's Specification may provide an explanation of "a power distribution grid with tens of thousands or more nodes and varying loads… IEEE 8500 node reference grid has approximately 1200 unknown loads with a corresponding 2400 unknown active and reactive powers”, but no such details have to be executed by the claims. No skilled artisan would interpret these argued features as claimed features, because the claims themselves are mute about executing such argued features. The claims must stand on their own. Examiner is not allowed to bring limitations set forth in the description into the claims. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the Specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the Specification into the claims. See Synopsys8 at page 20, 2nd paragraph, citing Accenture: 'The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves. See Accenture9… (admonishing that “the important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim”); see also Content Extraction10'.
Applicant further argues, (see page 11, next to last paragraph to page 13, 5th paragraph):
‘… embodiments provide a state estimation process that divides the grid into a plurality of smaller sub-sections, and then an unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) model is used to perform local state estimates within the respective sub-sections using data that is acquired from the respective sub-sections…
… because each sub- section on the grid is significantly smaller than the entire grid, the UKF model for each partition may be well-conditioned, making it more accurate in calculating the state estimations, and may be executed fast enough for the desired update rate…
As such, embodiments provide for an improvement to state estimation of a power grid, informing both the detection of disturbances in the power distribution grid and the generation of alarms, resulting in a more stable and safe power distribution grid…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
'2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]... the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology… invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity… the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B...'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because the claims may provide improved math ('generate… estimates') but do not provide limitations such that an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology is realized. Improved math is a species of the genus math and is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology. An improved abstract idea is a species of the genus abstract idea. The claimed invention lacks “improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field". See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) supra: 'the word "improvements"… is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field'.
As to the “generate… estimates” limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, estimating is a mental concept. Mathematical estimating operations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101… Step 2A, Prong One above)
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the rejections under 101 'claims 15-19, they are rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "non-transitory computer readable storage medium" to include non-statutory matter', Applicant provided no arguments.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the rejection under 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art disclosures in the previous rejection fail to teach the newly added limitations. These features of Applicants' claims and arguments were newly added. The previous Office Action could not have pointed out disclosures of a limitation that was not claimed before. Claims are rejected over Rana in view of Ghahremani and further in view of Rana(1) instead of Rana in view of Ghahremani. See rejection supra.
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.
Saburo Saito, U.S. Patent 10302682, discloses "an unscented Kalman Filter model dedicated for each sub-section" (see col. 30, lines 45-50; col. 7, lines 39-49).
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 - 8:00 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
2 Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
3 TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed.Cir. 2016)
4 Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362
5 OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
6 buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
7 SiRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d at 1616-17
8 Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (Fed. Cir. October 17, 2016)
9 Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
10 Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Prosecution Insights