DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Applicant’s remarks dated 7/20/2026 have been considered. Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 14-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
On pages 2-3 of Applicant’s 7/20/2026 remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
112
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner acknowledges that the “continuously executing the acquiring of observations, the processing of system state, and the communication of control action over a sequence of time steps to maintain voltage violations within a defined threshold with respect to a nominal voltage” limitation in the aggregate is not a mental step. That limitation is therefore addressed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Applicant has not rebutted any of the specific mental processes identified in the office action. Applicant’s argument appears to be that the “continuously ...” limitation precludes the previous limitations from being considered mental steps. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Simply using generic computing components to make mental steps more efficient does not transform a mental step into a non-mental step.
On page 3 of Applicant’s 7/20/2026 remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
610
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. By citing to MPEP 2106.05(a) and emphasizing that the claims pertain to “non-conventional methodology”, Applicant’s arguments in this section appear to actually pertain to Step 2B, and not to Step 2A, Prong 2.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant asserts that the claims “constitute[] a specific improvement to power distribution system control technology under MPEP 2106.05(a), not a merely ‘apply it’ instruction.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1):
In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Here, Applicant has not provided any citations to the specification explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to a technical field or other technology. Applicant merely states, without any evidentiary support, that the claims pertain to an improvement to “power distribution system control technology.” However, the only improvement to such technology appears to be using a deep learning model to more quickly and efficiently perform mental steps that a human can employ in the context of power distribution system control technology, which is not sufficient under Step 2A, Prong 2. In other words, a human technician overseeing 2 energy meters and 2 discretely controllable devices could mentally make decisions about whether to turn on/off such devices using data mentally considered, and the claimed invention merely uses a deep learning model to replace the human’s mental decisions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find that the claims reflect any such improvement to power distribution system control technology because the only improvement is using generic computer components to make the mental steps more efficient.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to “non-conventional methodology” will be explained below with respect to Step 2B
On page 4 of Applicant’s 7/20/2026 remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues solely with respect to claim 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
304
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument under MPEP 2106.05(b) that the claims now relate to a particular machine. As explained by MPEP 2106.05(b) III, “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.” Here, there is no improvement to the actual voltage regulators, capacitors, and batteries, and such devices are being changed according to their customary uses, and therefore such uses are a mere field-of-use limitation. The alleged invention is the decision about whether to change the state of one of these discrete controllable devices, and the ultimate signal to make such change is only normally related to the execution of the claimed invention.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument under MPEP 2106.05(c) that the claims now relate to a particular transformation. As explained by MPEP 2106.05(c), “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).” Here, there is no improvement to the actual voltage regulators, capacitors, and batteries, and such devices are being “transformed” according to their customary uses, and therefore such uses are a mere field-of-use limitation. Also, the generality of the transformation also indicates that the transformation is not “significantly more” because the invention does not provide any details or improvements to the chemical or physical acts with respect to such controllable devices.
On page 4 of Applicant’s 7/20/2026 remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2B, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
334
660
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s findings with respect to obviousness and 35 U.S.C. 103 are not relevant to Step 2B of the inquiry with respect to eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
MPEP 2106.05(d) explains that the “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” consideration is not a standalone test for eligibility, but rather is a factor for consideration. MPEP 2106.05(d) explains that this inquiry requires a “factual determination,” and the examiner respectfully submits that there is no factual evidence either favoring, or disfavoring, a finding of “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Therefore, this consideration does not favor, nor disfavor, a finding of subject matter eligibility.
Applicant has not rebutted the actual findings in the office action with respect to Step 2B, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the present rejections.
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 1-3, 6-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are directed to a method (a process), Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and Claims 15-16 are directed to a system comprising a plurality of meters and a computer system (an apparatus), which each fall within one of the four statutory categories of inventions.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “controllable devices”, “deep learning model”).
compute logits for a categorical distribution of predicted actions from the system state, wherein the predicted actions define switchable states of the discretely controllable devices (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human while considering the state of the controllable devices (e.g., 2 capacitors that are off), can mentally compute logits to make a prediction for an action, e.g., to switch 1 of the capacitors on; the examiner notes that “logits” is defined at para. 0060 of the instant specification as: “The term ‘logits’ as used in this description, generally refers to a prediction or output of the deep learning model, such as defined by a final or output layer of a neural network.”; the examiner notes that such computation of logits is merely using a model to make a prediction for an action, which a human can perform mentally)
processing the logits to reduce the categorical distribution of predicted actions for each discretely controllable device to an integer action for that discretely controllable device (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human can take the predicted action (e.g., turn on capacitor 1), and map that to an integer (e.g., 0 is off, 1 is on))
wherein the processing of the logits comprises: for each discretely controllable device, creating a discretized vector representation of the predicted actions based on the respective logits, and (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human can create a discretized vector representation, e.g., [{0,1}, {0,1}] to turn capacitors 1 and 2 on/off, where 0 = off and 1 = on, and the first element is for capacitor 1 and the second element is for capacitor 2)
determining the integer action for the respective discretely controllable device from the discretized vector representation of the predicted actions using a linear transformation. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human can linearly project from the discretized vector representation space to a different integer action space, where such projection is a linear transformation, for example, multiplying the discretized vector representation by -1, such that the integer action -1 corresponds to on, and 0 corresponds to off; the examiner further notes that performing a linear transformation of a vector is also a mathematical calculation)
wherein the discretized vector representation is created by: perturbing the logits with a random noise to create biased samples that represent differentiable approximations of samples of the categorical distribution of the predicted actions, and (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human can perturb the logits (a prediction) by adding a random number to the samples, such that the same represents a different approximation of the sample (with a slight amount of random noise added))
computing a one-hot vector encoding of the biased samples. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human can mentally convert a vector space to a one-hot vector encoding space)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements (e.g., “controllable devices”, “deep learning model”) which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “A method for controlling a power distribution system comprising a number of controllable devices, wherein at least some of the controllable devices are discretely controllable devices operable in discrete switchable states, the method comprising” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (making predictions in the field of controlling power distribution system devices). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “acquiring observations via measurement signals communicated by a plurality of meters in the power distribution system to define a system state” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “processing the system state using a reinforcement learned volt-var control policy comprising a deep learning model to output a control action that includes respective integer actions for the discretely controllable devices, wherein the integer actions are determined by” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a “reinforcement learned volt-var control policy comprising a deep learning model.” This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a generic deep learning model, where the structure of such model is not recited in sufficient detail). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “using learned parameters of the deep learning model to ...” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a “deep learning model.” This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a generic deep learning model, where the structure of such model is not recited in sufficient detail). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “communicating the control action to the controllable devices for effecting a change of state of one or more of the controllable devices, to regulate voltage and reactive power flow in the power distribution system” limitation, such additional element of a data transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data, i.e. post-solution activity of transmitting data from the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “the method comprising continuously executing the acquiring of observations, the processing of system state, and the communication of control action over a sequence of time steps to maintain voltage violations within a defined threshold with respect to a nominal voltage” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation generically recites an effect of the judicial exception, or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements (e.g., “controllable devices”, “deep learning model”) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “A method for controlling a power distribution system comprising a number of controllable devices, wherein at least some of the controllable devices are discretely controllable devices operable in discrete switchable states, the method comprising” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “acquiring observations via measurement signals communicated by a plurality of meters in the power distribution system to define a system state” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “processing the system state using a reinforcement learned volt-var control policy comprising a deep learning model to output a control action that includes respective integer actions for the discretely controllable devices, wherein the integer actions are determined by” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “using learned parameters of the deep learning model to ...” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “communicating the control action to the controllable devices for effecting a change of state of one or more of the controllable devices, to regulate voltage and reactive power flow in the power distribution system” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. post-solution activity of transmitting data from the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “the method comprising continuously executing the acquiring of observations, the processing of system state, and the communication of control action over a sequence of time steps to maintain voltage violations within a defined threshold with respect to a nominal voltage” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation generically recites an effect of the judicial exception, or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the discretely controllable devices comprise a combination of controllable devices selected from: one or more voltage regulators, one or more capacitors and one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (particular types of controllable devices). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “wherein effecting the change of state comprises at least one of: changing a tapping number of the one or more voltage regulators, switching the one or more capacitors between ON and OFF states, and changing a discrete discharge power of the one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (particular types of controllable devices). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the discretely controllable devices comprise a combination of controllable devices selected from: one or more voltage regulators, one or more capacitors and one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “wherein effecting the change of state comprises at least one of: changing a tapping number of the one or more voltage regulators, switching the one or more capacitors between ON and OFF states, and changing a discrete discharge power of the one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the system state is defined by nodal features of respective nodes of the power distribution system, the nodal features including a measured electrical quantity and a status of controllable devices associated with the respective nodes” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (particular types of data with respect to controllable devices). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the system state is defined by nodal features of respective nodes of the power distribution system, the nodal features including a measured electrical quantity and a status of controllable devices associated with the respective nodes” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the biased samples are created using a Gumbel-Softmax estimator. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human can mentally create samples by taking the predictions and applying the Gumbel-Softmax estimator trick; the examiner notes that the Gumbel-Softmax estimator is a set of mathematical calculations (see equations (10)-(14) of instant specification))
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the linear transformation comprises an inner product of the one-hot vector and the vector [0,1, ...n - 1], where n denotes a dimensionality of the one-hot vector defined by the number of switchable states of the respective discretely controllable device. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can mentally perform this limitation, for example, a human can mentally compute an inner product between a one-hot vector and the vector [0,1, ...n - 1]; the examiner further notes that this inner product computation is also a mathematical calculation)
Regarding Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when processed by a computing system, performs the method of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 14.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when processed by a computing system, performs the method of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 14.
Step 2B
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that, when processed by a computing system, performs the method of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2B with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 15 recites a system that corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 15. While claim 15 recites additional generic computing components (“controllable devices”, “plurality of meters”, “computing system”, “processors”, “memory storing algorithm modules”, “state estimation engine”, “volt-var control engine”, “deep learning model”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 15 recites a system that corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 15. While claim 15 recites additional generic computing components (“controllable devices”, “plurality of meters”, “computing system”, “processors”, “memory storing algorithm modules”, “state estimation engine”, “volt-var control engine”, “deep learning model”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Claim 15 recites a system that corresponds to the method of claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2B with respect to claim 1 also applies to this claim 15. While claim 15 recites additional generic computing components (“controllable devices”, “plurality of meters”, “computing system”, “processors”, “memory storing algorithm modules”, “state estimation engine”, “volt-var control engine”, “deep learning model”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the discretely controllable devices comprise a combination of controllable devices selected from: one or more voltage regulators, one or more capacitors and one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (particular types of controllable devices). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “wherein the change of state is effected via at least one of: changing a tapping number of the one or more voltage regulators, switching the one or more capacitors between ON and OFF states, and changing a discrete discharge power of the one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (particular types of controllable devices). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the discretely controllable devices comprise a combination of controllable devices selected from: one or more voltage regulators, one or more capacitors and one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “wherein the change of state is effected via at least one of: changing a tapping number of the one or more voltage regulators, switching the one or more capacitors between ON and OFF states, and changing a discrete discharge power of the one or more batteries” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 14-16 would be allowed if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over the prior art, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome:
Claim 1 would be allowed, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome, because the references of record either alone or in combination do not fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claim 1, including at least:
wherein the discretized vector representation is created by:
perturbing the logits with a random noise to create biased samples that represent differentiable approximations of samples of the categorical distribution of the predicted actions, and
computing a one-hot vector encoding of the biased sample
The closest prior art of record discloses: (This should be the art applied to reject the claims)
Wang, Wei, et al. "Safe off-policy deep reinforcement learning algorithm for volt-var control in power distribution systems." IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 11.4 (2020), pp. 3008-3018, hereinafter referenced as WANG, teaches a system for managing distribution system-wide voltage levels and reactive power flows with respect to voltage regulating and VAR control devices. (p. 3008, section I). WANG teaches using ordinal encoding to represent the discrete actions. (p. 3013, section III.F).
Paulus, Max B., et al. "Rao-blackwellizing the straight-through gumbel-softmax gradient estimator." arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04838 (2020), hereinafter referenced as PAULUS, teaches the straight-through Gumbel-Softmax (ST-GS) estimator to reduce variance of a gradient estimation. (pp. 5-6, sections 5.1-5.2).
US 20220309073 A1, hereinafter referenced as KATE, teaches data conversion techniques where data is converted to an ordinal domain using a projection. (para. 0024).
US 20220180242 A1, hereinafter referenced as LEE, teaches perturbing an output of a machine learning model with random noise. (para. 0034).
However, the examiner has found that the distinct feature of the Applicant's claimed invention over the prior art is the explicit claiming of the aforementioned limitations in combination with all the other limitations as specified in claim 1. In particular, the examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the teachings of WANG to (1) introduce random noise to the output distribution (prior to the ordinal encoding) when creating the discretized vector representation for controlling devices operable in discrete switchable states, and (2) to use one-hot encoding instead of ordinal encoding (of WANG), without the hindsight aid of Applicant’s disclosure. While introducing random noise may make sense during training of the recited volt-var control policy, claim 1 does not claim the training of the volt-var control policy, but rather, claims the use of the volt-var control policy. Adding random noise in such a situation would degrade the performance, so one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to modify the prior art references in the manner recited. Therefore, claim 1 would be allowed over the prior art if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
Claims 2-3, 6-7 and 14 depend from claim 1, and would be allowed for depending from an allowed independent base claim, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
Claim 15 claims a system that corresponds to the method of claim 1, and would be allowed for the same reasons discussed regarding claim 1, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and would be allowed for depending from an allowed independent base claim, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
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 MICHAEL C LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm ET.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/MICHAEL C. LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights