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 08/14/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-19 and 21 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/14/2026 has been entered.
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, via multiple cores of a multi-core processor, a plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections in parallel 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 but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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… 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, a processor, and a multi-core 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, a processor, and a multi-core 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 state estimates for partitions 410, 420, and 430, can be performed in parallel on a multi-core processor 440" (see page 26, 2nd paragraph),
"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),
"The processor 720 may include one or more processing devices each including one or more processing cores. In some examples, the processor 720 is a multicore processor or a plurality of multicore processors. Also, the processor 720 may be fixed or it may be reconfigurable" (see page 37, 2nd 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", they 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“, 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. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 21 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 cited taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record discloses claims 1, 8, and 15:
"… generate, via multiple cores of a multi-core processor… state estimates for the… sub-sections in parallel based on load distribution within the… 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… state estimates for the… sub-sections and a boundary consensus between the… sub-sections from a previous state estimation of the section of the power distribution grid…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine any 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
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 rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 7, 3rd paragraph to page 9, 1st paragraph):
‘… Claim 1, at least as now amended, does not recite an abstract idea as described in Section I of the 2019 Guidance. In particular, a processor configured to "generate, via multiple cores of a multi-core processor, a plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections in parallel based on load distribution within the plurality of sub-sections and an unscented Kalman Filter model dedicated for each sub-section," 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. As understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, a multi-core processor is a type of central processing unit (CPU) that contains multiple processing cores that act independently, and each core contains its own registers, arithmetic logic units, and execution pipelines, functioning essentially as individual CPUs, which is not subject matter performed in the human mind nor can it be practically performed in the human mind…
… the claimed use of the multiple cores of a multi-core processor to generate a "plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections in parallel based on load distribution within the plurality of sub-sections and an unscented Kalman Filter model dedicated for each sub-section," recites the integral use of a particular machine to achieve performance of the generation step. (Emphasis added)’
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’
‘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")'.
SiRF4 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 MPEP 2106.04(b) or SIRF supra).
Each of the limitations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101… Step 2A, Prong One above), alone or in combination, amount to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e., mental process), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The mere recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. 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” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101… Step 2A, Prong Two/Step 2B above). 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. See MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) supra
Applicant further argues, (see page 9, 2nd to next to last paragraph):
‘… Further, traditionally, the SCADA component monitors power flow through the lines, transformers and other components in a process that can be slow, especially during emergencies. See, e.g., para. [0044] of Applicant's specification. Rather than estimate the state of entire power grid using a sequence of equations, embodiments use unscented Kalman Filters (UKFs) that are dedicated to particular partitions (i.e., trained from power measurements that are measured from its respective partition, etc.). Each partition may have its own UKF. By dividing the power grid into smaller sub-sections, and then executing individual (local) UKF models on each of the sub- sections, it is possible to perform the state estimates of each sub-section (partition) in parallel (i.e., simultaneously) via a multi-core processor. Accordingly, the time that it takes to perform the state estimation for large power grids (e.g., over 10,000 nodes) can be comparable to the time it takes to perform a state estimation for smaller power grids in near real-time. If the power grid continues to grow, the number of partitions can be updated (i.e., increased) to maintain a consistent number of loads in each partition with respect to a desired threshold (e.g., 200 loads, etc.). When the number of partitions increases, the number of cores used to perform the state estimation can be increased without adding additional time to the overall state estimation process." See, e.g., paras. [0006]-[0007] and [0076]-[0077] of Applicant's specification…’
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...'.
OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.5 reads (underline emphasis added):
'But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice… (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs… (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because it is well established that "relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (supra). A faster abstract idea ("state estimation", as argued) is still an abstract idea.
As to the generate estimates limitations (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above), 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 – underline emphasis added – "[t]he proposed distributed estimation scheme runs unscented Kalman Filter update for each partition (which can run in parallel) and calculates the projected value for voltages and powers at coupling points between partitions… projected estimate onto equality constraint in Eq 11 are calculated as" (see page 29, 2nd paragraph to page 30, 2nd paragraph).
As to Applicant’s arguments 'perform the state estimates of each sub-section (partition) in parallel (i.e., simultaneously) via a multi-core processor. Accordingly, the time that it takes to perform the state estimation for large power grids (e.g., over 10,000 nodes) can be comparable to the time it takes to perform a state estimation for smaller power grids in near real-time', much faster or improved math is a species of the genus math. Math is an abstract idea. A much faster or improved abstract idea is a species of the genus abstract idea. The claims may provide much faster or 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. 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'.
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 rejections under 103, the rejections are rendered moot by the amendment.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, 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 SiRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d at 1616-17
5 OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Prosecution Insights