DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Arguments filed on 09/05/2025 is considered. The arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 and 103 are not persuasive as explained below.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112: Applicant corrected the unclear section in claims 15-17. Therefore, the rejection under 112 is withdrawn.
Regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C 101:
Applicant argues: “Claims 1 - 17 stand rejected as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Applicant traverses the rejection for at least the reason that the non- conventional use of sensor data constitutes a technical improvement with a practical application that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1, Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States establishes that a particular method of using raw data from sensors does not merely recite the abstract idea of using mathematical equations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I). A sensor such as the electricity meter of claim 1 "configured to measure total energy consumption of the whole communication network site" would be conventionally used as described - measuring a total energy consumption value. However, the method of claim 1 comprises a first estimate of an equipment section of a communication network site wherein the site is divided into two or more equipment sections. With at least one energy consumption estimated by the method and the measurement of total energy consumption of the network site, at least two data result from the method of claim 1, not just one. In other words, using a single electricity meter for measuring and estimating a plurality of data constitutes non-conventional use of sensor equipment, and claim 1 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the applied prior arts Liu US 20180092049 A1 and Besore et al. US 20110282504 A1 teach or suggest estimation of an equipment section of a communication network site wherein the site is divided into two or more equipment sections (see Fig. 1 radio equipment (BBU 304 and RRU 306) and nonradio equipment AC/cooling, power supply, paragraph [0020-24] and equation 3,4, 6 in Liu) and also equivalent to Fig. 1 in Besore. See in Fig. 1 equipment are divided into two or more equipment section. Each section’s power consumption is estimated by microcontroller in them as suggested by paragraph [0021]). Besore also suggests at least one energy consumption estimated by the method programmed in the controller(s) and the measurement of total energy consumption of the network site by the power meter (see paragraph [0042]), therefore, at least two data result from a method are taught by Besore. Therefore, Besore suggests using a single electricity meter for measuring and estimating a plurality of data constitutes a conventional use of sensor equipment, and amounts to insignificant well known and routine data gathering step. Accordingly, the energy consumption estimation at the equipment section were considered to be a mathematical step, whereas the energy or power measurement by the meter were considered to be insignificant extra solution activity.
Applicant argues “Under step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, it is clear as described above that the measurement and/or estimation of multiple readings from a single meter would be considered a technical improvement in the field. For example, at a communication network site where the independent management of equipment may preclude power monitoring, the ability to non-intrusively estimate energy consumption of said equipment may lead to advantageous management of the whole communication network site, such as optimization of energy consumption. Therefore, claim 1 and claims 2 - 17, which depend from claim 1, are not directed to a judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because as discussed above, Liu and Besore alone or in combination teach conventional idea or technique of measurement and estimation of multiple readings of power consumption from a single meter. The examiner’s analysis regarding the abstract ideas and the extra solution activity in the office action mailed on 06/18/20255 is proper. Accordingly, the instant invention would not provide any meaningful improvement in the field of art in view of the applied prior arts for its independent claims. Dependent claims follow the deficiency of the independent claims.
Applicant argues “Even if the claims were directed to a judicial exception, claim 1 as a whole would recite an inventive concept amounting to significantly more under step 2B of the eligibility analysis. It is unclear how the computer implemented method of detecting maintenance work at a certain time and responsively estimating energy consumption of independently managed equipment sections from a single meter would be considered well-understood, routine, or conventional. Therefore, if the claims were directed to a judicial exception, claim 1 as a whole still recites a significant inventive concept and would be patentable, along with claims 2 - 17 which depend from claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the above argument is sufficiently addressed by the Liu paragraph [0033]. Examiner has also addressed their position in the office action dated 06/18/2025. Therefore, considering the independent claims as a whole in view of the prior arts the presented claims for examination are determined to be well know, routine steps and do not provide inventive concept in the field of art. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C 103:
Applicant argues “Claims 1 — 8, 11 — 17 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2018/0092049 A1) in view of Besore et al. (US 2011/0282504 A1). Applicant traverses the rejection for at least the reason that (i) the combination fails to teach or suggest estimating the energy consumption of an equipment section of a communication network site responsive to detecting maintenance work and (ii) the person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine Besore with Liu with a reasonable expectation of success.
Liu is relied upon as teaching a computer implemented method of energy consumption analysis of a communication network site comprising the feature of claim 1 above. However, Liu does not employ a measurement of total energy consumption of the whole communication network site in the manner claimed. Instead, Liu uses data load of a network site and applies an energy factor to estimate increases in energy consumption proportional to increased data load. The outstanding Action sites Liu [0023] which includes Equation (6) for calculating total energy consumption:
Per Liu Equations 3, 4, and 5, energy factor f(i) is calculated from power(i), consisting of radioPower(i), power as a function of data load, and nonRadioPower(i), a constant [0020]. Furthermore, load(i) is characterized as average data throughput [0021] and j, k indices represent historical power consumption data [0008].
Since Liu uses historical data, average values, and estimated correction factors back- calculated from site data load, it is unclear what would motivate a person of ordinary skill to use the method of Liu if they instead had direct measurements from "an electricity meter configured to measure total energy consumption of the whole communication network site" as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, a change of magnitude in the total energy consumption at a point in time as recited in claim 1 without relying on data load is a measurement categorically unsuited to the method of Liu as described by the equations above, let alone the further constraint of a section-level disaggregation method to estimate power consumption using a single site-level meter.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Liu addresses the claim language as recited in claim 1, Liu in paragraph [0023] and equation clearly teaches the total power (i.e., energy) consumption of a whole site (i.e, includes a cluster of cell sites C0 thorough Cn-1). Regarding- Since Liu uses historical data, average values, and estimated correction factors back- calculated from site data load, it is unclear what would motivate a person of ordinary skill to use the method of Liu if they instead had direct measurements from "an electricity meter configured to measure total energy consumption of the whole communication network site" as recited in claim 1, it is important to take an account of historical data, average value, and correction factors (i.e., for energy factor) in response to change in load in each site so that the current total energy consumption of the whole site can be accurately estimated.
Further, Liu does rely on change on a data load (see paragraph [0021], equation 3, 4) in each site, which is accounted in equation 6 to determine a change in magnitude in the total energy consumption at a point in time as recited in claim 1, therefore Liu’s method to estimate power consumption in whole site using an integration of each sites’ energy level is proper.
Applicant argues “Liu is further relied upon as teaching the "responsive to detecting maintenance work taking place in a first section of the site at the first point of time" of claim 1, described in the outstanding Action as "setting power levels of the site (i.e. during power setting or maintenance period) technician knows or would know how much power is need[ed] or to be supplied or will be consumed in each site" (Action, Page 14). However, as commented by the Examiner, the setting of power levels applies to "each site", not to equipment sections within a single site or equipment sections under individual and independent management as in the claimed invention. The mention of a maintenance period does not imply that the method of Liu is responsive to maintenance work of a section of the site, such that the power consumption of sub-elements each site may be ascertained by an electricity meter configured to measure total energy consumption of the whole communication network site as claimed.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because in Liu paragraph [0033] which is in Fig. 3, also teaches/suggests monitoring one or more energy consumption components 304 (i.e., equipment’s) in site 302. The energy or power in each component of a site varies (i.e., changes or adjusted) with load data that reflects in the changes in the site energy usage. The energy usage or supply in the site 302 is monitored by 324. Therefore, Liu suggest detecting a change in a load of component result in the change of the site. Accordingly, examiner addressed the claim limitation with the technicians consider the recommended coverage area or radius of each cell, when setting power levels of the site (i.e., during power setting or maintenance period) technician knows or would know how much power is need or to be supplied or will be consumed in each site.
Applicant argues “Besore discloses a method for monitoring power consumption of devices in a home network comprising changing operational modes of said devices to determine different power consumption levels. Besore is relied upon as teaching "total energy consumption values of the communication network site from an electricity meter configured to measure total energy consumption of the whole communication network site (para [0022] [0025] [0042]".
Whereas Besore appears to teach a power consumption monitoring method using an electricity meter (power meter 118), Besore applies to a home network application, wherein a controller 102 is coupled with, and has access to command, the devices on the network. First, a home network is not a communication network site, therefore it is unclear what motivation a person of ordinary skill would have to combine Besore with Liu.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because house network can also be considered as a communication network site. And Besore throughout the specification also discloses the devices, controller and meter are in one- or two-way communication to each other see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0022] [0025] [0042]. They may be in wired or wireless communication to each other. Therefore, Besore provides a suitable idea of measuring total energy consumption in the communication network site.
Applicant argues “Second, the method for monitoring power consumption in Besore presumes management access to the equipment in the network, which would not be considered the "two or more equipment sections...that are individually and independently managed by different entities" of claim 1, where equipment sections are not commandable. Liu does not appear to disclose or fairly teach at least the "responsive to detecting maintenance work" of claim 1, and Besore has no need to be responsive to detecting maintenance work because Besore is managed by a single entity and can initiate operational changes itself at will. Substituting Besore's commanded power consumption monitoring would change the principle of operation of Liu, and it is unclear what motivation a person of ordinary skill would have to combine Besore with Liu with a reasonable expectation of success.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because “Besore was used to teach total energy consumption values of the whole communication network site from an electricity meter. However, examiner believes Besore also suggests each device 1-3 being monitored by their respective microcontroller. Liu teaches or suggests an energy management network system where two or more equipment sections that consume energy are individually and independently managed by different entities.” Please see Fig. 3 and paragraph 20 in Liu, radio power equipment and nonradio power equipment. Radio power (BBU 304 and RRU 306) viewed to be manage by radio access network and nonradio power equipment (Air conditioners, fans, power supplies etc.) viewed to be managed by operation and maintenance. From Besore, examiner had tried to show that the total energy usages in a network with different equipment can be monitored by a single meter, otherwise Liu implicitly teaches estimating a total energy consumption of a whole network site through a mathematical equation in paragraph 23. Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art would suitably add the single meter from Besore into Liu and determine a total energy consumption in the whole network site of the present invention.
Applicant argues “The combination of Liu and Besore thereby fails to disclose or fairly teach the features of claim 1:
- a communication network site divided into two or more equipment sections that are
individually and independently managed by different entities;
- detecting a change in magnitude in energy consumption coincident with
maintenance work in a section of the site; and
- responding to detecting maintenance work with an estimate of section energy
consumption;
therefore claim 1 is patentable over Liu in view of Besore. By virtue of their dependency on claim 1, claims 15 - 17 are also patentable.”
Examiner believes that examiner has reasonably explained their position in each argued section above. Therefore, examiner believes the combination of Liu in view of Besore teaches a communication network site divided into two or more equipment sections that are individually and independently managed by different entities; detecting a change in magnitude in energy consumption coincident with maintenance work in a section of the site; and responding to detecting maintenance work with an estimate of section energy consumption. Therefore, the independent claim 1, 13 and 14 are not patentable in view of the applied prior arts Liu and Besore. The respective dependent claims (2-12, 15), 16 and 17 inherit the deficiency of the independent claims and are not patent eligible.
As there are not any addressable amendment in the claim set filed on 09/05/2025, Examiner is maintaining the rejections made from the office action mailed on 06/18/2025. Therefore, please consider the claim interpretation, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 and 103 from 06/18/2025 as being reproduced in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drew (US 20110106316 A1) discusses energy consumption monitoring in appliances.
Dzuban (US 20160224047 A1) discusses energy consumption monitoring in telecommunication network.
Spiel (US 20160349829 A1) discusses monitoring consumption of power network of operating devices.
Bodas (US 20150169026 A1) discusses managing power consumption in computing system.
Sivasubramaniam (US20140067294A1) discusses power monitoring in a data center.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863