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
Claims 16, 21, 24-28 and 31-33 are pending
Claims 16, 21, 24-28 and 31-33 have been amended
Claims 34 and 35 are new
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 16, the applicant argues the claim is not directed to abstract idea based on example 39 of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (Remarks page 7-10), which finds that utilizing trained machine-learned model does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas or calculations. However, the USPTO issued a guidance update on patent subject matter eligibility to address innovation in critical, emerging technologies especially machine learning. In the updated PEG, claim 2 of example 47 is substantially similar to claim 16. Similarly, to claim 2 of example 47, claim 16 does not put any limits on how the operational data is received. Generating a parameter via machine-learned models, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, uses the early-life degradation model or the end-of-life degradation model which are mathematical formulas/calculations. The steps of receiving operational data, inputting the operational data into a model and generating, via the machine learned models, a parameter are all recited as being performed by a computer recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the step of generating an alert and combined with the step of receiving operational data is considered mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, applicant’s arguments regarding claim 16 not directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 16, 21, 24-28, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a method for estimating an operational state of a semiconductor chip of a power semiconductor device in a power converter of a wind turbine connected to an electrical grid, the method comprising: receiving operational data related to the semiconductor chip over consecutive time intervals, wherein the operational data comprises operational data from the wind turbine or the power converter, and comprises one or more of the following: maximum active power of a generator during a time interval, mean active power of the generator during the time interval, a standard deviation of active power of the generator, coolant temperature of the power converter, mean voltage at the wind turbine, and mean reactive power delivered to the electrical grid; inputting the received operational data to as a model input to one or more machine-learned models configured to estimate an operational state of the semiconductor chip; generating, via the one or more machine-learned models, a parameter indicative of the operational state of the semiconductor chip and an indication of uncertainty of a value of the generated parameter for each of the consecutive time intervals; and generating an alert when an alert criterion is fulfilled for at least one of the consecutive time intervals, wherein the alert criterion is based on the generated parameter and the indication of uncertainty, wherein the generated parameter is a life usage of the chip, wherein the alert criterion comprises a difference between a high bound of cumulative life usage at an end of a time period based on the indication of uncertainty and a low bound of cumulative life usage based on the indication of uncertainty at a beginning of the time period, wherein the difference exceeds a predefined life usage threshold.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites a method for estimating an operational state. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating an operational state can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of generating, via the one or more machine-learned models, a parameter indicative of the operational state of the semiconductor chip and an indication of uncertainty of a value of the generated parameter for each of the consecutive time intervals. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, generating a parameter indicative of an operational state of the semiconductor chip and an indication of uncertainty of a value of the generated parameter can be done by a human with pen and paper, particularly through engineering intuition, domain expertise and experience in interpreting data. In device modeling, engineers manually set and adjust optimization regions to extract critical parameters from experimental characteristic curves.
The claim recites the limitation of wherein the alert criterion comprises a difference between a high bound of cumulative life usage at an end of a time period based on the indication of uncertainty and a low bound of cumulative life usage based on the indication of uncertainty at a beginning of the time period, wherein the difference exceeds a predefined life usage threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, having an alert criterion comprising a difference between a high bound of cumulative life usage at an end of a time period based on the indication of uncertainty and a low bound of cumulative life usage based on the indication of uncertainty at a beginning of the time period, wherein the difference exceeds a predefined life usage threshold can be done/determined by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: a semiconductor chip of a power semiconductor device in a power converter of a wind turbine connected to an electrical grid
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating an operational state in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a parameter determination and outputting an alert when a criterion is filled. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: receiving operational data related to the semiconductor chip over consecutive time intervals, wherein the operational data comprises operational data from the wind turbine or the power converter, and comprises one or more of the following: maximum active power of a generator during a time interval, mean active power of the generator during the time interval, a standard deviation of active power of the generator, coolant temperature of the power converter, mean voltage at the wind turbine, and mean reactive power delivered to the electrical grid; inputting the received operational data to as a model input to one or more machine- learned models configured to estimate an operational state of the semiconductor chip; generating an alert when an alert criterion is fulfilled, wherein the alert criterion is based on the determined parameter and the indication of uncertainty, wherein the determined parameter is a life usage of the chip.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating an operational state in a computer environment by using models/algorithms to make a determination. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 21 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 21 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the generated parameter is the life usage of one or more of a transistor, a diode, a heat sink or a capacitor.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 24 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 24 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the indication of the uncertainty includes two or more of the following indicators regarding the generated parameter: mean value; standard deviation; variance; a lower or higher bound with a confidence interval; and a minimum, a maximum, a median, a quantile, or an interquartile range of the parameter.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 25 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 25 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the one or more machine-learned models comprises an ensemble of models configured to estimate the operational state of the semiconductor chip.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 26 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 26 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the one or more machine-learned models comprises a Bayesian inference model.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 27 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 27 is further recites the element(s) “… determining a potential degradation of the semiconductor chip over time as a function of operating conditions of the semiconductor chip; and estimating a remaining useful life for the semiconductor chip based on the estimated current operational state of the semiconductor chip and the potential degradation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 27 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 28 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 28 is further recites the element(s) ”A computing system comprising a processor configured to perform the method… .”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 31 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 31 is further recites the element(s) ”… further comprising indicating, via a user interface, the alert..”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 31 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 32 depends on claim 27, which depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 32 is further recites the element(s)” … further comprising indicating, via a user interface, the alert...”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 32 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites a method for estimating an operational state of a semiconductor chip of a power semiconductor device in a power converter of a wind turbine connected to an electrical grid, the method comprising: receiving operational data related to the semiconductor chip over consecutive time intervals, wherein the operational data comprises operational data from the wind turbine or the power converter, and comprises one or more of the following: maximum active power of a generator during a time interval, mean active power of the generator during the time interval, a standard deviation of active power of the generator, coolant temperature of the power converter, mean voltage at the wind turbine, and mean reactive power delivered to the electrical grid; inputting the received operational data to as a model input to one or more machine- learned models configured to estimate an operational state of the semiconductor chip; generating, via the one or more machine-learned models, a parameter indicative of the operational state of the semiconductor chip and an indication of uncertainty of a value of the generated parameter for each of the consecutive time intervals; and generating an alert when an alert criterion is fulfilled for at least one of the consecutive time intervals, wherein the alert criterion is based on the generated parameter and the indication of uncertainty, wherein the generated parameter is a peak junction temperature, wherein the alert criterion comprises a predetermined number of times that a higher bound of the peak junction temperature based on the indication of uncertainty thereof exceeds a predefined temperature threshold.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites a method for estimating an operational state. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, estimating an operational state can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of generating, via the one or more machine-learned models, a parameter indicative of the operational state of the semiconductor chip and an indication of uncertainty of a value of the generated parameter for each of the consecutive time intervals. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, generating a parameter indicative of an operational state of the semiconductor chip and an indication of uncertainty of a value of the generated parameter can be done by a human with pen and paper, particularly through engineering intuition, domain expertise and experience in interpreting data. In device modeling, engineers manually set and adjust optimization regions to extract critical parameters from experimental characteristic curves.
The claim recites the limitation of wherein the generated parameter is a peak junction temperature, wherein the alert criterion comprises a predetermined number of times that a higher bound of the peak junction temperature based on the indication of uncertainty thereof exceeds a predefined temperature threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, having the alert criterion comprising a predetermined number of times that a higher bound of the peak junction temperature based on the indication of uncertainty thereof exceeds a predefined temperature threshold can be done/determined by a human or with pen and paper. Humans can easily recognize pre-set criteria, especially when a threshold is met.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: a semiconductor chip of a power semiconductor device in a power converter of a wind turbine connected to an electrical grid;
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating an operational state in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a parameter determination and outputting an alert when a criterion is filled. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: receiving operational data related to the semiconductor chip over consecutive time intervals, wherein the operational data comprises operational data from the wind turbine or the power converter, and comprises one or more of the following: maximum active power of a generator during a time interval, mean active power of the generator during the time interval, a standard deviation of active power of the generator, coolant temperature of the power converter, mean voltage at the wind turbine, and mean reactive power delivered to the electrical grid; inputting the received operational data to as a model input to one or more machine- learned models configured to estimate an operational state of the semiconductor chip; generating an alert when an alert criterion is fulfilled for at least one of the consecutive time intervals, wherein the alert criterion is based on the generated parameter and the indication of uncertainty
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating an operational state in a computer environment by using models/algorithms to make a determination. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 34 depends on claim 16, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 34 is further recites the element(s) ”… further comprising outputting the generated alert via a user interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 34 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 35 depends on claim 33, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 35 is further recites the element(s)” … further comprising outputting the generated alert via a user interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 35 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 7346462 B2; Delmerico; Robert is a System, method, and article of manufacture for determining parameter values associated with an electrical grid.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights