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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 10/31/2025.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to arguments regarding claims 1-8 and 17-20 rejected under 35 USC 101 applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong One, claims 1-8 and 17-20 do not recite an abstract idea (see page 7). Applicant submits that claims 1-8 and 17-20 are not directed to a judicial exception without more, since the calculations claimed are calculations that are not practical to perform by a human mind or without any physical aid (see penultimate paragraph of page 7 and first paragraph of page 8 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits with respect to Step 2A Prong 1 that the claims are directed to a judicial exception. With respect to claims 1 and 17, the claims recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for calculating voltage magnitudes for each phase from the obtained phase voltages; calculating voltage angles for each phase from the obtained phase voltages; executing a detection algorithm that calculates voltage magnitude errors for each phase; calculates voltage angle errors for each phase; generates voltage phase-phase errors for each phase pair; compares phase-phase errors to determine an uncorrelated phase; determines an incipient failure signal corresponding with the determined uncorrelated phase.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper i.e. comparing, determining, recording steps, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers i.e. calculating steps. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
It have been held that “[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP2106(a)(2)(I)(C).
Although the claimed calculations may be a complex task to perform in the human mind or by pen and paper and would take more time than by performing complex operations by using a general computer, however the argued calculations are still considered abstract ideas directed towards mathematical concepts (i.e. calculating, calculates, determines steps) and processes that can be purely mental i.e. compares step, which requires judgement or opinion to arrive to the conclusion of arriving to a desired parameter. While implementing the abstract idea would be advantageous to reduce the time it would take to implement complex mathematical operations, it have been held that the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and cannot be considered a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant further submits that similarly to Example 39 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, where steps include collecting, applying, creating, training, creating and training instant application claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and that claims 1 and 17 do not recite any of the judicial exceptions and are therefore, patent eligible under 35 USC 101 (see first and second paragraph of page 8 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claims recite concepts related to mathematical concepts (i.e. calculating voltage magnitudes for each phase from the obtained phase voltages, calculating voltage angles for each phase from the obtained phase voltages, calculates voltage magnitude errors for each phase, calculates voltage angel errors for each phase…) and concepts related to human activities that can be performed by the human mind (i.e. compare phase-phase errors to determine an uncorrelated phase…) without significantly more and that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the additional claim elements of “intelligent electronic device (IED), configured with signal processing module and a monitoring and protection module” recited by claims 1, and “an intelligent electronic device comprising a signal processing module”, “processing circuitry”, and “a monitoring and processing module” recited by claim 17 amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; “obtain phase voltages from each phase of a multiple-phase electric power delivery system” recited by claims 1,and 17, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. detecting incipient failure in instrument transformers), and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. activating an alarm to issue a notification indicating the incipient failure and the corresponding instrument transformer; recording the notification indicating the incipient failure and the corresponding instrument transformer) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Example 39, is directed towards facial detection for identifying human faces in digital images in which neural network is used and more specifically the claim language uses a combination of features to more robustly detect human faces. Note that although mathematical transformation functions are applied on acquired set of facial images, the neural networks are trained with an expanded training set using stochastic learning with backpropagation and minimizing false positives by performing iterative training algorithm, in which the system is retrained with an updated training set containing false positives produced after face detection and that the combination of features provides a robust detection model that can detect faces in distorted images while limiting the number of false positives (improvement), the combination of elements provides an improvement of the technology.
Contrary to Example 39, instant application claims does recite a judicial exception (i.e. steps of calculating, calculate compares, determines,…) and does not disclose additional elements that can be considered and improvement over the prior art as the additional claim elements is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generic computer used to execute the abstract idea and because the results are merely output and not used in a particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to improve the technology so it can be considered significantly more and therefore the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Furthermore, applicant argues that claims 1 and 17 do not recite a judicial exception because they do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas or calculations and submits that the Examiner has not pointed to any mathematical relationship, formula or calculations recited in claims 1 or 17, but instead alludes to the claim reciting “concepts related to mathematical algorithm/concepts” and that is clearly insufficient to support the alleged conclusion (see third paragraph of page 8 of the remarks). Applicant further submits with respect to Example 39, claim 1, states that “while some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims” in its conclusion that the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships. Compare this to the analysis of Example 47, claim 2 which does recite a mathematical calculation by name and that because neither claim 1 nor claim 17 recite a mathematical concept in the claims, both are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 as not reciting a judicial exception” (see last three paragraphs of page 8 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, since the claims 1 and 17 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for calculating voltage magnitudes for each phase from the obtained phase voltages; calculating voltage angles for each phase from the obtained phase voltages; executing a detection algorithm that calculates voltage magnitude errors for each phase; calculates voltage angle errors for each phase; generates voltage phase-phase errors for each phase pair; compares phase-phase errors to determine an uncorrelated phase; determines an incipient failure signal corresponding with the determined uncorrelated phase.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper i.e. comparing, determining, recording steps, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers i.e. calculating steps. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
It have been held that “[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP2106(a)(2)(I)(C).
As discussed above contrary to Example 39, instant application claims does recite a judicial exception (i.e. steps of calculating, calculate compares, determines,…) and does not disclose additional elements that can be considered and improvement over the prior art as the additional claim elements is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generic computer used to execute the abstract idea and because the results are merely output and not used in a particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to improve the technology so it can be considered significantly more and therefore the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Note that in Example 47 claim 1 is eligible as the claims falls withing a statutory category and does not recite any judicial exception, claim 2 is ineligible because it recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) and the clam as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (and is thus directed to an abstract idea), and the claim does not provide significantly more than the exception (does not provide an inventive concept). Claim 3 is eligible because it recites a judicial exception but eh claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by improving the network technology.
Similarly to claim 2 of example 47, instant application claims, is ineligible because it recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) and the clam as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (and is thus directed to an abstract idea), and the claim does not provide significantly more than the exception (does not provide an inventive concept).
With respect to claims 1-8 and 17-20 applicant argues with respect to step 2A- prong two that the claims recite additional elements demonstrating integration into a practical application (see first paragraph of page 9 of the remarks) and further submits that as a whole claims 1 and 17 clearly provide improvements to the technology or technical field, namely, protection of electric power delivery systems and that the claimed technique improves functionality by detecting incipient failures of a voltage transformer, and even identifying which phase is experiencing incipient failures and that by determining errors and alarming for these errors, the protective device and protection system technology is improved, which is similar to detection of suspicious activity by using network monitors and analysis of network packets as an improvement to computer network technology as claimed in SRI International. See MPEP, 2106.04(d)(1) and therefore are not drawn towards an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong Two (see last paragraph of page 9 and first paragraph of page 10 of the remarks).
In response, the Examiner disagrees and submits that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “intelligent electronic device (IED), configured with signal processing module and a monitoring and protection module” recited by claims 1, and “an intelligent electronic device comprising a signal processing module”, “processing circuitry”, and “a monitoring and processing module” recited by claim 17 amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; “obtain phase voltages from each phase of a multiple-phase electric power delivery system” recited by claims 1,and 17, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. detecting incipient failure in instrument transformers), and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. activating an alarm to issue a notification indicating the incipient failure and the corresponding instrument transformer; recording the notification indicating the incipient failure and the corresponding instrument transformer) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The examiner further submits that the claims of instant application are distinct from those of SRI International, Inc. v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 because the claims do not reflect the argued specific technique to solve a technological problem arising in a power system device nor reflect an improvement to the technology.
In SRI International, Inc. v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 the claims were held to be patent eligible because “[t]he claims are directed to using a specific technique—using a plurality of network monitors that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the monitors—to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks: identifying hackers or potential intruders into the network”, and because “the claims are not directed to just analyzing data from multiple sources to detect suspicious activity. Instead, the claims are directed to an improvement in computer network technology. Indeed, representative claim 1 in SRI International, Inc. v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 recites using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data, generating reports of that suspicious activity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical monitors. '615 patent col. 15 ll. 2-21. The "focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities"—that is, providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect largescale attacks”.
However, contrary to the claims in SRI International, Inc. v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, instant application claims do not reflect the use of a specific technique by using a particular device to analyze specifics types of data to solve a technological problem arising in a power system device nor reflect an improvement in power system technology. In addition, contrary to the claims in SRI International, Inc. v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, the focus of the instant application claims is not on specific asserted improvements to the power system technology and therefore are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, instant application claims do not reflect the use of a specific technique to improve the functionality of the instrument transformer nor reflect an improvement in power system technology and the focus of the claims is not on specific asserted improvements to the power system technology and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 and 17 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for calculating voltage magnitudes for each phase from the obtained phase voltages; calculating voltage angles for each phase from the obtained phase voltages; executing a detection algorithm that calculates voltage magnitude errors for each phase; calculates voltage angle errors for each phase; generates voltage phase-phase errors for each phase pair; compares phase-phase errors to determine an uncorrelated phase; determines an incipient failure signal corresponding with the determined uncorrelated phase.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Claim 17 is an intelligent electronic device, with substantially similar claim language as the apparatus of claim 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “intelligent electronic device (IED), configured with signal processing module and a monitoring and protection module” recited by claims 1, and “an intelligent electronic device comprising a signal processing module”, “processing circuitry”, and “a monitoring and processing module” recited by claim 17 amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; “obtain phase voltages from each phase of a multiple-phase electric power delivery system” recited by claims 1,and 17, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. detecting incipient failure in instrument transformers), and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. activating an alarm to issue a notification indicating the incipient failure and the corresponding instrument transformer; recording the notification indicating the incipient failure and the corresponding instrument transformer) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer i.e. “intelligent electronic device (IED)” recited by claims 1, and 17, and “processing circuitry” recited by claim 17, and because the “memory” (claim 17) comprising instructions to be executed by the processor used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm and does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 18-20 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claims 1, and 17.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 18-20 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “calculating voltage phase-phase errors comprises calculating voltage magnitude phase-phase errors and voltage angle phase-phase errors” (claims 2, 18), “comparing the voltage magnitude phase-phase errors the voltage angle phase-phase errors” (claims 3, 18), “wherein the uncorrelated phase corresponds with a common phase from the voltage magnitude phase-phase error comparison and the voltage angle phase-phase error comparison” (claims 4, 18), “pre-processing the voltage magnitudes for each phase to produce pre-processed voltage phase magnitudes; pre-processing the voltage angles for each phase to produce pre-processed voltage phase angles; wherein the voltage magnitude errors are calculated using the pre-processed voltage phase magnitudes; and wherein the voltage angle errors are calculated using the pre-processed voltage phase angles” (claims 5 and 19), “pre-processing the voltage magnitudes comprises calculating per-unit voltage magnitudes for each phase; and pre-processing the voltage angles comprises calculating derivatives of the voltage angles for each phase” (claims 6, and 20), “comparing the phase-phase errors to a predetermined threshold for determination of the uncorrelated phase” (claims 7), “calculating a portion of time that the incipient failure signal is present, and issuing the notification only when the portion of time exceeds a predetermined threshold” (claims 8) and which mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-8 and 18-20 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “intelligent electronic device (IED)” recited in claims 1 and 17 and “processing circuitry” recited by claim 17 amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the limitations recited by claims 2-8 and 18-20 merely add further details as to the type of data, and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) 1-8 and 17-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Furthermore, the additional claim limitations recited by the instant application claims do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to any other technology or technical field, applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application as discussed above. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art of Record
The closest prior art made of record cited in Form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tran et al. US20160359424 discloses a multi-phase electric drive that includes a multi-phase transformer (abstract), measuring a level of voltage as electrical quantity by three voltage divider, which is a linear circuit that can produce an output voltage that is a fraction of its input voltage which is to be measured and wherein a calculation of phase-to-phase voltage is disclosed (para. 0035-0036), wherein phase voltages are measured and a Clarke transformation module is used to process measured phase voltages to get the vector sum of the phase-to-phase voltage vectors which are separated by predetermined vector angle and a value for the magnitude of the vector sum output from the Clarke transformation module can be provided (para. 0044-0045, 0059); and wherein an absolute value of the voltages and the voltage differences between V1 and VDC and V2 and VDC and V3 and VDC are calculated and a comparison of these absolute values are compared to a threshold and a diode failure condition due to short circuit is determined (see para. 54, 0056-0057).
Pearson US20140163760, discloses a transformer failure detection system configured to detect an abnormality associated with the electrical voltage and electrical current measurements as an indication of a possible transformer failure (see abstract, para. 0004); wherein the phases of each terminal voltages may be compared to a voltage phase error level threshold to compute voltage phase error and a voltage magnitude may analyze and process each of the terminal voltages and compare the magnitude of each of the terminal voltages to a voltage magnitude level in order to determine that the one or more of the PTs has possibly failed and/or malfunctioned (see para. 0022-0023); and wherein a deactivation of transformer failure detection system when abnormal voltage conditions result from electrical faults.
Kramer et al. US 635106, wherein a fault angle, which is the angle between the voltage and the current in the line going to the fault is disclosed (see col.5 , ll.15-16 ) and a phase angle is derived based on the three line-neutral voltages (see col. 12, ll. 36-51).
However, the closest prior art of record either in singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of independent claims 1, 9 and 17, in particular calculating voltage angle errors for each phase; calculating voltage phase-phase errors for each phase pair; comparing phase-phase errors to determine an uncorrelated phase; determining an incipient failure signal corresponding with the determined uncorrelated phase; and issuing a notification indicating the incipient failure and the corresponding phase, in combination with the limitations set forth by claims 1, 9, and 17 without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
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 YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857