DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Examiner would like to confirm with Applicant that one the inventor’s name is Tianguang LV (emphasis added) as specified in the ADS and that this is not a typographical error.
Priority
The present application, 17749994 filed 05/20/2022 claims foreign priority to CN2021110790637, filed 09/15/2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
A. a data acquiring module; a coupled meteorological index acquiring module; an influence factor matrix acquiring module; a basic state matrix acquiring module; an augmented data source matrix acquiring module; a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module; a source matrix acquiring module; a random matrix acquiring module; and a data abnormality recognition module as specified in claim 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.71(a) which requires “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. The following should be corrected.
1.) In claim 1 line 20, “calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients, comprising” should read “wherein calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients, comprises” instead for better clarity. Claim 8 recites a similar limitation in line 25 and is objected to for the same reason. Claims 2-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence.
2.) In claim 3 line 3, “matrix transformation” should read “the matrix transformation” instead because matrix transformation is already recited in claim 1 line 14.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1.) a data acquiring module in claim 8
2.) a coupled meteorological index acquiring module in claim 8
3.) an influence factor matrix acquiring module in claim 8
4.) a basic state matrix acquiring module in claim 8
5.) an augmented data source matrix acquiring module in claim 8
6.) a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module in claim 8
7.) a source matrix acquiring module in claim 8
8.) a random matrix acquiring module in claim 8
9.) a data abnormality recognition module in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the Pearson correlation coefficient” in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which specific Pearson correlation coefficient of the Pearson correlation coefficients this is supposed to refer. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as a Pearson correlation coefficient instead. Claim 8 recites a similar limitation in line 34 and is rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence.
Further, claim 1 recites “obtaining a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients of the coupled meteorological index and the active load data in the augmented data source matrix” in lines 9-11 and “calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients, comprising: the basic state matrix taking time points as the number of columns, and data of a basic state quantity of a power grid representing the number of rows; the influence factor matrix taking time points as the number of columns, and the coupled meteorological index data representing the number of rows; the augmented data source matrix being upper-lower splicing of the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix, the basic state matrix being on the upper portion, and the influence factor matrix being on the lower portion; and selecting a sub-matrix from the augmented data source matrix by moving a window, calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient by using data of a certain row of the basic state matrix and a corresponding row of the influence factor matrix, and obtaining Pearson correlation coefficients of a state matrix and an influence factor matrix in the sub-matrix after multiple calculations” in lines 20-32. It is unclear how the Pearson correlation coefficients of the coupled meteorological index and the active load data are calculated when the specific steps of calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients does not include using the active load data as input to any of the sub-steps of calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients. Furthermore, the calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients in lines 20-32 refers to the calculating Pearson correlation coefficients of the coupled meteorological index and the active load data in lines 9-11, however, the Pearson correlation coefficients obtained in lines 20-32 are Pearson correlation coefficients of a state matrix and an influence factor matrix and not the Pearson correlation coefficients of the coupled meteorological index and the active load data which creates confusion as to how the Pearson correlation coefficients calculated in lines 20-32 are related to the Pearson correlation coefficients calculated in lines 9-11. Further clarification is required. Claim 8 substantially recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence.
Claim 2 recites “the plurality of obtained singular value equivalent matrices” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as the singular value equivalent matrices.
Claim 3 recites “wherein characteristic values of a matrix after matrix transformation are calculated; spectrum analysis according to the obtained characteristic values is performed; probability density distribution of the Pearson correlation coefficient according to spectrum analysis results is obtained: and a correspondence between the coupled meteorological factor index and the active load data according to the probability density distribution of the Pearson correlation coefficient is obtained.” A wherein clause is normally used to further limit a limitation that has been previously introduced. Therefore, it is unclear how the recited limitations further limit or relate to the recited steps in claim 1. It is unclear whether the recited steps are further limiting the “obtaining probability density distribution …” steps in claim 1 lines 16-20 because of the recitation of similar terms or whether the claim is reciting additional steps. Further clarification is required.
Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, these are interpreted as the characteristic values, the Pearson correlation coefficients, the coupled meteorological index, and the Pearson correlation coefficients respectively.
Claim 5 recites “the coupled meteorological factor index” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as the coupled meteorological index. Claims 6-7 recite a similar limitation in line 3 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 recites “the relative humidity” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted relative humidity. Claim 7 recites a similar limitation in line 6 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim limitations “a data acquiring module, configured to acquire meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed”; “a coupled meteorological index acquiring module, configured to obtain a coupled meteorological factor index according to the acquired meteorological data”; “an influence factor matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain an influence factor matrix according to coupled meteorological index data”; “a basic state matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain a basic state matrix according to the active load data”; “an augmented data source matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain an augmented data source matrix according to the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix”; “a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients of the coupled meteorological factor index and the active load data in the augmented data source matrix”; “a source matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain a source matrix according to the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix and the basic state matrix”; “a random matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain the random matrix after performing matrix transformation on the source matrix”; and “a data abnormality recognition module, configured to obtain probability density distribution after performing spectrum analysis on characteristic values of the random matrix, and obtain an abnormality recognition result of the active load data according to comparison between the probability density distribution and historical probability density distribution in a normal state” in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses that “ the present application may use a form of hardware embodiments, software embodiments, or embodiments with a combination of software and hardware” in page 13. However, the specification is devoid of adequate hardware structure to perform the claimed functions. There is no disclosure of any hardware particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed functions. Furthermore, in the case where these limitations are computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for performing each of the claimed specific computer functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure of each module to perform all the recited claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are drawn to software, per se. Although claim 8 recites various “modules”, the specification discloses that “the present application may use a form of hardware embodiments, software embodiments, or embodiments with a combination of software and hardware” in page 13. MPEP 2181 II.B states that “a claim that includes a means-plus-function limitation that corresponds to software per se (and is thus indefinite for lacking structural support in the specification) is not necessarily directed as a whole to software per se unless the claim lacks other structural limitations.” As claimed, there is no other hardware structural recitations for the “system” of claim 8. Therefore, the claim may be reasonably interpreted as software alone, which lacks the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. As such, it fails to fall within a statutory category and is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1-7 recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claim 8 recites a system.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A method for analyzing a regional energy Internet load behavior based on a random matrix, comprising the following process:
acquiring meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed;
obtaining a coupled meteorological index according to the acquired meteorological data;
obtaining an influence factor matrix according to coupled meteorological index data;
obtaining a basic state matrix according to the active load data;
obtaining an augmented data source matrix according to the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix;
obtaining a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients of the coupled meteorological index and the active load data in the augmented data source matrix;
obtaining a source matrix according to the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix and the basic state matrix;
obtaining the random matrix after performing matrix transformation on the source matrix; and
obtaining probability density distribution after performing spectrum analysis on characteristic values of the random matrix, and obtaining an abnormality recognition result of the active load data according to comparison between the probability density distribution and historical probability density distribution in a normal state;
calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients, comprising:
the basic state matrix taking time points as the number of columns, and data of a basic state quantity of a power grid representing the number of rows;
the influence factor matrix taking time points as the number of columns, and the coupled meteorological index data representing the number of rows;
the augmented data source matrix being upper-lower splicing of the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix, the basic state matrix being on the upper portion, and the influence factor matrix being on the lower portion; and
selecting a sub-matrix from the augmented data source matrix by moving a window, calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient by using data of a certain row of the basic state matrix and a corresponding row of the influence factor matrix, and obtaining Pearson correlation coefficients of a state matrix and an influence factor matrix in the sub-matrix after multiple calculations.
The above underlined limitations of obtaining various matrices/data based on different input matrices/data, obtaining a probability density distribution of a random matrix and comparing the probability density distribution with a historical probability density distribution of a normal state of load data to determine an abnormality of the active load data amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See at least page 6-7 where the coupled meteorological index are described as mathematical formulas 1-3; page 11 where the Pearson correlation is described as formula 9 in; page 10 where the spectrum analysis is described as formula 6 and the probability density distribution is described as formula 8. Furthermore, the steps of “obtaining an influence factor matrix according to coupled meteorological index data”, “obtaining a basic state matrix according to the active load data” and “obtaining an augmented data source matrix according to the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses manually generating the factor matrix and the state matrix using time points as columns of the matrices and using the load data and the meteorological index data as rows and concatenating both matrices to generate the augmented data source matrix as recited in the subsequent claim limitations using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a regional energy Internet load behavior, and acquiring meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed. However, the additional element of “a regional energy Internet load behavior” is merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional element of “acquiring meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering and is also merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the data gathering step to a particular type of data (i.e., meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a regional energy Internet load behavior” is merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional element of “acquiring meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering and is also merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting the data gathering step to a particular type of data (i.e., meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed). See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” 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. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework step 2A prong 1, claims 2-7 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Further, claim 2 recites further details of the abstract idea of performing the matrix transformation wherein “the matrix transformation comprises the following process: transforming the source matrix into a standard non-Hermitian matrix; according to the obtained standard non-Hermitian matrix, calculating singular value equivalent matrices; multiplying the plurality of obtained singular value equivalent matrices to obtain a matrix to be analyzed; converting the matrix to be analyzed into a standard matrix with a mean value of 1 and a variance of 0; and using a covariance matrix of the standard matrix as a finally transformed matrix.” Claim 3 recites further abstract ideas of “wherein characteristic values of a matrix after matrix transformation are calculated; spectrum analysis according to the obtained characteristic values is performed; probability density distribution of the Pearson correlation coefficient according to spectrum analysis results is obtained: and a correspondence between the coupled meteorological factor index and the active load data according to the probability density distribution of the Pearson correlation coefficient is obtained.” Claim 4 recites further details of the augmented data source matrix wherein “a row number ratio of the influence factor matrix to the basic state matrix is 0.4.” Claim 5 recites further details of the coupled meteorological factor index wherein “the coupled meteorological factor index at least comprises a heat index (
H
I
):
H
I
=
c
1
+
c
2
T
+
c
3
R
+
c
4
T
R
+
c
5
T
2
+
c
6
R
2
+
c
7
T
2
R
+
C
8
T
R
2
+
c
9
T
2
R
2
, wherein
c
1
,
c
2
,
c
3
,
c
4
,
c
5
,
c
6
,
c
7
,
c
8
,
a
n
d
c
9
are constant coefficients,
T
is temperature and
R
is relative humidity.” Claim 6 recites further details of the coupled meteorological factor index wherein “the coupled meteorological factor index at least comprises an effective temperature
T
e
:
T
e
=
(
37
-
T
a
)
[
0.68
-
0.14
R
h
+
1
1.76
+
1.4
V
0.75
-
0.29
T
a
(
1
-
R
h
)
wherein,
T
a
is an air temperature,
R
h
is the relative humidity, and
V
is a wind speed.” Claim 7 recites further details of the coupled meteorological factor index wherein “the coupled meteorological factor index at least comprises a human body comfort index
k
:
k
=
1.8
T
a
-
0.55
1.8
T
a
-
26
1
-
R
h
-
3.2
V
+
3.2
wherein,
T
a
is an air temperature,
R
h
is the relative humidity, and
V
is a wind speed” and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular claims 3-7 do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, claim 2 recites the following additional elements: acquiring a source matrix at a certain sampling moment. However, the additional element of “acquiring a source matrix at a certain sampling moment” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 2 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “acquiring a source matrix at a certain sampling moment” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” 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. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A system for analyzing a regional energy Internet load behavior based on a random matrix, comprising:
a data acquiring module, configured to acquire meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed;
a coupled meteorological index acquiring module, configured to obtain a coupled meteorological factor index according to the acquired meteorological data;
an influence factor matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain an influence factor matrix according to coupled meteorological index data;
a basic state matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain a basic state matrix according to the active load data;
an augmented data source matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain an augmented data source matrix according to the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix;
a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients of the coupled meteorological factor index and the active load data in the augmented data source matrix;
a source matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain a source matrix according to the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix and the basic state matrix;
a random matrix acquiring module, configured to obtain the random matrix after performing matrix transformation on the source matrix; and
a data abnormality recognition module, configured to obtain probability density distribution after performing spectrum analysis on characteristic values of the random matrix, and obtain an abnormality recognition result of the active load data according to comparison between the probability density distribution and historical probability density distribution in a normal state;
calculating the Pearson correlation coefficients, comprising:
the basic state matrix taking time points as the number of columns, and data of a basic state quantity of a power grid representing the number of rows;
the influence factor matrix taking time points as the number of columns, and the coupled meteorological index data representing the number of rows;
the augmented data source matrix being upper-lower splicing of the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix, the basic state matrix being on the upper portion, and the influence factor matrix being on the lower portion; and
selecting a sub-matrix from the augmented data source matrix by moving a window, calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient by using data of a certain row of the basic state matrix and a corresponding row of the influence factor matrix, and obtaining Pearson correlation coefficients of a state matrix and an influence factor matrix in the sub-matrix after multiple calculations.
The above underlined limitations of obtaining various matrices/data based on different input matrices/data, obtaining a probability density distribution of a random matrix and comparing the probability density distribution with a historical probability density distribution of a normal state of load data to determine an abnormality of the active load data amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See at least page 6-7 where the coupled meteorological index are described as mathematical formulas 1-3; page 11 where the Pearson correlation is described as formula 9 in; page 10 where the spectrum analysis is described as formula 6 and the probability density distribution is described as formula 8. Furthermore, the steps of “obtaining an influence factor matrix according to coupled meteorological index data”, “obtaining a basic state matrix according to the active load data” and “obtaining an augmented data source matrix according to the basic state matrix and the influence factor matrix” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module “ language, the claim encompasses manually generating the factor matrix and the state matrix using time points as columns of the matrices and using the load data and the meteorological index data as rows and concatenating both matrices to generate the augmented data source matrix as recited in the subsequent claim limitations using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a regional energy Internet load behavior; a data acquiring module, configured to acquire meteorological data and active load data of a region to be analyzed; a coupled meteorological index acquiring module; an influence factor matrix acquiring module; a basic state matrix acquiring module; an augmented data source matrix acquiring module; a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module; a source matrix acquiring module; a random matrix acquiring module; and a data abnormality recognition module. However, the additional elements of “a data acquiring module”; “a coupled meteorological index acquiring module”; “an influence factor matrix acquiring module”; “a basic state matrix acquiring module”; “an augmented data source matrix acquiring module”; “a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module”; “a source matrix acquiring module”; “a random matrix acquiring module”; and “a data abnormality recognition module” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a data acquiring module for acquiring input data; a coupled meteorological index acquiring module for obtaining a coupled meteorological factor index; an influence factor matrix acquiring module for acquiring an influence factor matrix; a basic state matrix acquiring module for acquiring an a basic state matrix; an augmented data source matrix acquiring module for acquiring an augmented data source matrix; a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix acquiring module for acquiring a Pearson correlation coefficient matrix; a source matrix acquiring module for acquiring a source matrix; a random matrix acquiring module for acquiring a random matrix; and a data abnormality recognition module for acquiring an abnormality recognition result in manner that merely restates the functions being performed without reciting any specific structural configuration of any of the modules) such that they amount to no more than mere instruct