DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 06/10/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 5-8 as set forth below in this Office action.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.30):
PNG
media_image1.png
182
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail in sections 7-8 below, with the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner considers that Parkin discloses a method of detecting anomaly in an electrical grid based on monitored voltage comprising: determining whether the statistical value is outside of the range (col. 17, lines 33-42; col. 18, lines 3-56); in response to determining that the statistical value is outside of the range: limiting capturing (e.g., separately storing in the PQ-Node or the multi-channel recorder only the data block that is flagged), by utilizing the statistical module, to voltage waveforms of a predetermined number of cycles (e.g., 12 cycles; see col. 7, lines 51-55) around the present voltage waveform having the statistical value outside of the range (col. 8, lines 55-60; col. 15, lines 28-41; col. 22, line 51 – col. 23, line 3; col. 23, lines 15-26; col. 30, lines 48-53); calculating, by utilizing the statistics module, out of range data comprising the one or more statistical metrics of the captured voltage waveforms having the statistical value outside of the range (col. 7, lines 56-67; col. 30, lines 48-53); transmitting, by utilizing a communication module of the electricity meter, the captured voltage waveforms and the out of range data to a remote computing device (e.g., the multi-channel recorder) associated with the electrical grid (col. 8, lines 12-24 and 49-63; col. 32, lines 47-61); and sending, by utilizing the communication module, an alarm to the remote computing device (see discussion of 19a in Fig. 2) associated with the electrical grid (col. 8, lines 25-42; col. 19, lines 15-39). As such, Applicant’s argument in this regard is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that (REMARKS, p.30):
PNG
media_image2.png
255
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With the BRI to the claims, Examiner asserts that Parkin does disclose the limitation in question. In particular, Parkin teaches explicitly: separating the data block that has greater degrees of volatility from other data blocks and capturing in the multi-channel recorder only the data block at issue for detailed analyses. Furthermore, the 12-cycle time period of aggregated measured voltage values indeed reads on the claimed “voltage waveforms of a predetermined number of cycles”.
Regarding the claim Interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), Applicant argues that the terms “voltage module”, “statistics module”, “communication module” and “metrology module” are well known structural terms that do not invoke 112(f). This argument is unpersuasive. First, examiner notes that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not a rejection but a claim interpretation. “Module” is an accepted generic placeholder term or nonce word as it has no specific structural meaning in the art. Applicant has not provided any explanation of what the specific structural meaning of these terms may be or what particular structure one of ordinary skill would know these named “modules” to encompass. Instead, Applicant simply submits they are “known” without any explanation of what the “known” structure of the “modules” themselves actually are. When a placeholder term is coupled to functional language without sufficient modifying structure within the claim it invokes 112(f), which is the instant case. The claims are then interpreted in light of the specification for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function. A review of the specification finds that the corresponding structure for the modules interpreted under 112f is software and/or hardware components of a general purpose computer, and its equivalents, e.g. see [0015]: “The processors 202 may execute computer-executable instructions stored in the memory 204 to perform functions or operations with one or more of components, or modules, communicatively coupled to the one or more processors 202.”. The claims are interpreted accordingly, i.e. the “modules” in the claims are interpreted as covering the corresponding the structure described in the specification. see MPEP 2181: “The issue in Williamson was whether a "distributed learning control module" limitation in claims directed to a distributed learning system should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347, 115 USPQ2d at 1110. The Federal Circuit concluded that "the 'distributed learning control module' limitation fails to recite sufficiently definite structure and that the presumption against means-plus function claiming is rebutted." Id. at 1351, 115 USPQ2d at 1113. In support, the Federal Circuit determined that "the word 'module' does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ had been used." Id. at 1350–51, 115 USPQ2d at 1112.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a voltage module”, “a statistics module”, “a communication module”, and “a metrology module”, etc. in claims 1-7 and/or claims 8-20. Applicant has not provided any explanation of what the specific structural meaning of these terms may be or what particular structure one of ordinary skill would know these named “modules” to encompass. See Spec., paragraphs [0015]-[0016].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
6. Claims 1-20 and 26-28 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 and 26-28 are directed to an abstract idea of detecting anomaly in an electrical grid based on monitored voltage.
Specifically, representative claim 8 recites:
An electricity meter comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more modules coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more modules including a communication module and a metrology module; and
memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations utilizing the one or more modules, the operations comprising:
(S1) collecting, by utilizing a voltage module of the metrology module, at a preselected sampling rate, a voltage waveform of an electrical grid coupled to the electricity meter at a periphery of the electrical grid;
(S2) determining, by utilizing a statistical module of the metrology, standard voltage waveform statistics of voltage of the electrical grid based on the voltage data, the standard voltage waveform statistics including one or more statistical metrics;
(S3) determining, by utilizing the statistical module, a range for the one or more statistical metrics based on the standard voltage waveform statistics;
(S4) at a preselected interval, calculating, by utilizing the statistical module, a statistical value of the one or more statistical metrics of a present voltage waveform sampled at the preselected sampling rate;
(S5) determining, by utilizing the statistical module, whether the statistical value is outside of the range;
(S6) in response to determining that the statistical value is outside of the range:
(S6.1) limiting capturing, by utilizing the statistical module, to voltage waveforms of a predetermined number of cycles around the present voltage waveform having the statistical value outside of the range;
(S6.2) calculating, by utilizing the statistics module, out of range data comprising the one or more statistical metrics of the captured voltage waveforms having the statistical value outside of the range;
(S6.3) transmitting, by utilizing a communication module of the electricity meter, the captured voltage waveforms and the out of range data to a remote computing device associated with the electrical grid; and
(S6.4) sending, by utilizing the communication module, an alarm to the remote computing device associated with the electrical grid.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each and/or the combination of the limitations S2, S3 and S4 recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation and evaluation, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Under its BRI, the limitation S5 encompasses a data analysis process that can be performed by the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking.
The limitation S6 is entirely conditional, depending on whether or not the statistical value is outside of the range, but is no longer linked to the remainder of the limitation S5. Thus, the claim encompasses determining not to perform the limitation S6 if an “outside of the range” event does not occur. It is considered that a computer programmer's mental decision whether the statistical value is outside of the range can be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper based on basic critical thinking. Further, each of the limitations S6.1 and S6.2 encompass a mental process (i.e., data recording and/or manipulation) that can be performed by a human using pen/paper or a general-purpose computer.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/paper or a generic computer.
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 8, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Representative claim 8 recites: “An electricity meter comprising one or more processors; one or more modules coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more modules including a communication module and a metrology module; and memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations utilizing the one or more modules” and “an electrical grid coupled to the electricity meter at a periphery of the electrical grid”. It is deemed that each of the components/modules of the electricity meter, including “one or more processors”, “one or more modules coupled to the one or more processors”, “a communication module and a metrology module”, “memory coupled to the one or more processors” and “an electrical grid coupled to the electricity meter at a periphery of the electrical grid”, is recited at a high level of generality. In particular, the combination of the processor and the memory reads on a general-purpose computer processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Using the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2106, it is held that performing an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer system would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the claim does not require any particular machine or concrete structural components in a particular way to implement the coupling between the communication/metrology modules and the generic processor, and without placing any limits on how the communication module and the metrology module function to assist the generic processor in generating and manipulating the voltage data. As such, they do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim but are merely related to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Special attention is given to the generically recited “a metrology module” (coupled to the one or more processors) and “a statistical module of the metrology”. Under the BRI, each or the combination of them encompasses a general-purpose computer and/or generic computing component used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Under its BRI, the limitation S1 encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the statistical (math) calculations. As explained above, the additional elements of “an electrical grid coupled to the electricity meter at a periphery of the electrical grid” and “a voltage module of the metrology module” are all recited at a high level of generality but do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The “voltage module” is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not require any particular devices or sensors to sample the voltage data and/or to perform the “collecting”. Thus, under the BRI, the limitation of “collecting voltage data, by utilizing a voltage module of the metrology module, by sampling, at a preselected sampling rate, …” does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Furthermore, said “sampling” does not specify how the “sampling” is performed and/or any particular sampling devices or mechanisms are used in certain particular manner. Thus claim 8 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Under the BRI, each of the limitations S6.3 and S6.4 encompasses a step of gathering the data/information necessary for outputting the results of the identified abstract idea, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., transmitting or displaying the algorithm results) to the judicial exception that does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The “statistical module” is used merely as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving/capturing and transmitting data but does not amount to be “significantly more”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim requires that the limitations S2, S3, S4, S5, S6.1 and S6.2 are performed by utilizing a statistical module of the metrology. As illustrated above, the “statistical module of the metrology” is recited at a high level of generality. It is used merely to perform the identified abstract idea, as such it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
None of the additional elements of claim 8 is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. At most, they only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “heart” of pending claim 8 is directed to an algorithm of analyzing voltage data of an electrical grid, wherein the algorithm is performed in an electricity meter at a periphery of the electrical grid. The algorithm of analyzing voltage data encompasses statistical calculations, i.e., mathematical concepts, falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
The claimed electricity meter, including a voltage module and statistical module of the metrology module, at a periphery of the electrical grid is recited at a high level of generality. It is deemed that a device (such as a smart meter or a digital/advanced meter including a metrology module as the core component of the meter) that records real-time quantitative measurement of electricity consumption and power quality data and automatically analyzes the data to generate outputs is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See the prior art cited below in this Office Action.
As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two above, each or the combination of the additional limitations in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or well-known techniques. The claim does not recite any additional element that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 9-14 and 27 inherit attributes of the independent claim 8, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above. As to the additional elements of “data of the voltage data corresponding to periods during which the electrical grid is known to be operating normally” (claim 9), “the one or more statistical metrics include at least one of: a crest factor; or skewness” (claim 10), “one or more statistical metrics of the preselected intervals in the captured predetermined number of cycles of voltage waveforms” (claim 11)”, etc., under the BRI, they encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of electrical grid monitoring and/or anomaly detection but do not amount to be meaningful to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-7, 15-20, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 8-14 and 27 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 1-20 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkin (US 9453869 B1) in view of Hummon et al. (US 20240213800 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Parkin discloses a method, performed by an electrical power quality node (PQ-Node 10 in Figs. 1 and 2, comprising a microprocessor 16 and ram 17) coupled to an electrical grid (see discussion related to PQ-Node 10 in Figs. 1 and 2) at a periphery of the electrical grid for detecting voltage anomaly in an electrical grid (Abstract; col. 5, lines 59-67; col. 22, lines 51-62: PQ-Nodes that measure a transient voltage disturbance produce an RMS voltage standard deviation that is too large to meet data block compression criteria, and thus will stand apart as a lone 200-milisecond data block. Measured volatility in this way becomes a great tool for isolating moments in time and correlating them with specific locations on the electrical distribution system that measured the same volatile anomaly. This allows the analyst to look at the electrical distribution system as a whole, comparing the volatility of the voltage waveforms measured for specific time periods, and use this measure to identify the origin and cause of voltage fluctuations as they occur.), wherein electrical power quality node comprising: one or more processors (16 Fig. 2); one or more modules coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more modules including a communication module and a metrology module (col. 7, lines 32-36); and memory (17) coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations utilizing the one or more modules, the operations comprising:
collecting, by utilizing a voltage module of the PQ-Node, voltage data by sampling a voltage waveform of the electrical grid at a preselected sampling rate (col. 7, lines 14-17 and 41-55);
determining, by utilizing a statistics module of the PQ-Node, standard voltage waveform statistics of voltage of the electrical grid based on the voltage data (col. 6, lines 1-10; col. 7, lines 46-65; col. 21, lines 42-67), the standard voltage waveform statistics including one or more statistical metrics (e.g., the standard deviation measured for the voltage and current RMS values measured by that PQ-Node; see col. 10, lines 33-35; col. 21, lines 42-67; col. 22, lines 15-62; see also Figs. 16a/16b and related text);
determining, by utilizing the statistics module, a range (e.g., the upper and lower boundaries which are used as limits to determine whether the V-RMS standard deviation of the data blocks that follow it are suitable for compression or transient analysis) for the one or more statistical metrics based on the standard voltage waveform statistics (col. 23, lines 16-44);
at a preselected interval, calculating, by utilizing the statistics module, a statistical value (e.g., voltage percent variation) of the one or more statistical metrics of a present voltage waveform sampled at the preselected sampling rate (col. 10, lines 33-35; col. 21, lines 51-62; col. 22, lines 19-26), and determining whether the statistical value is outside of the range (col. 17, lines 33-42; col. 23, lines 16-35);
in response to determining that the statistical value is outside of the range (col. 17, lines 33-42; col. 18, lines 3-56):
limiting capturing (e.g., only the data block that is flagged), by utilizing the statistical module, to voltage waveforms of a predetermined number of cycles (e.g., 12 cycles; see col. 7, lines 51-55) around the present voltage waveform having the statistical value outside of the range (col. 8, lines 55-60; col. 15, lines 28-41; col. 22, line 51 – col. 23, line 3; col. 23, lines 15-26; col. 30, lines 48-53);
calculating, by utilizing the statistics module, out of range data comprising the one or more statistical metrics of the captured voltage waveforms having the statistical value outside of the range (col. 7, lines 56-67; col. 30, lines 48-53; see also discussion about the data block used in the transient analyses);
transmitting, by utilizing a communication module of the electricity meter, the captured voltage waveforms and the out of range data to a remote computing device (e.g., the multi-channel recorder) associated with the electrical grid (col. 8, lines 12-24 and 49-63; col. 32, lines 47-61); and
sending, by utilizing the communication module, an alarm to the remote computing device (see discussion of 19a in Fig. 2) associated with the electrical grid (col. 8, lines 25-42; col. 19, lines 15-39).
Parkin does not mention explicitly: said electrical power quality node is an electricity meter coupled to said electrical grid at a periphery of the electrical grid.
Hummon discloses a method, performed by an electricity meter (edge device 201 in Fig. 2; para. 0008: “The system can include a grid edge device (e.g., a metering device) comprising … positioned at a grid edge”; para. 0030: “In utility distribution grids, meters or other components within utility distribution grids can collect samples of power delivery or consumption at respective sites (e.g., residential homes, facilities, or entities) for processing”; para. 0061: “a grid edge device 201, which can include any grid device, such as a metering device 118, or any other system coupled with the grid”; para. 0064: “Electricity characteristics 210 can include any type and form of attributes or properties of the electrical power being delivered or consumed at a site of a grid edge device 201. Electricity characteristics 210 can include, for example, voltage levels, current flow, power consumption …”; para. 0065: “Input query 204 can be generated by applications 282 on client devices 280 and transmitted to the data processing system 150 for processing and response generation. For example, a user can query the system to find out the projected electricity bill for a time period, … based on one or more electricity characteristics 210”) coupled to an electrical grid at a periphery of the electrical grid (para. 0062: “The grid edge device 201 can be a metering device 118 at a particular site or a location (e.g., a local grid, or a portion of a grid) and can be utilized to manage or operate electricity services at that location”), for fingerprint analyses associated with voltage characteristics in the electrical grid (para. 0006: “The metering device can include a graphic processing unit (GPU) configured to process collected data, thereby combining metrology and GPU processing capability to enable distributed edge computing or learning”; para. 0034, 0055: “The edge device can include or correspond to the metering device 118”, para. 0060: “The meter collar can … enable real-time data collection and distributed AI models for execution at the grid edge (e.g., executed on edge devices)”; para. 0064: “The electrical waveforms can correspond to at least one of the voltage or current waveforms”; para. 0105: “the model selected for the respective application can perform the respective functionalities, such as but not limited to fingerprint analysis associated with voltage characteristics”; para. 0111: “the metric generator 210 can determine the one or more metrics based on or according to the voltage and current detected by the edge device 201, the sensor of the edge device 201, or the metering device 118”; see also para. 0134).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parkin’s PQ-Node in view of Hummon to arrive the claimed invention by incorporating the functionalities of electric consumption metering and the fingerprint-analyses of Hummon’s electricity meter/edge device (201) into Parkin’s PQ-node, such that it is capable of performing signal/data collection, electricity metering, and fault detection in a single edge device located on an electricity distribution grid. Doing so would allow for providing an electricity meter as an edge device that is capable of handling data processing operations (e.g., grid edge intelligence) at the edge of the utility distribution grid to optimize the configurations or decisions (e.g., adjustment of electrical input or output) for the distributed energy resources in real-time, and intelligent visualization of the electrical conditions at the grid edge (e.g., capabilities for acquiring the statuses or event information associated with the utility distribution grid and presenting the information to the users), and providing capabilities or supports for integrating one or more applications, such as third-party applications, from various application developers to one or more edge devices, among other non-limiting features or functionalities (Hummon, para. 0004). It has been held that the mere application of known technologies (e.g., edge computing in smart meters for utilities) to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Parkin discloses: wherein determining the standard voltage waveform statistics of the voltage of the electrical grid based on collected voltage data includes: selecting, by utilizing the statistics module, data of the voltage data corresponding to periods during which the electrical grid is known to be operating normally (col. 7, lines 56-62; col. 12, lines 26-35; col. 18, lines 27-39); and determining, by utilizing the statistics module, the standard voltage waveform statistics of the voltage of the electrical grid based on the selected data (col. 7, lines 56-62; col. 12, line 54 - col. 13, line 2; col. 18, lines 27-39).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Parkin discloses: wherein the one or more statistical metrics further include at least one of: a crest factor; or skewness (col. 6, lines 1-10 and 17-32; col. 10, lines 33-35; col. 21, lines 51-57: “the standard deviation is then divided by the average RMS value, multiplied by 100” reads on “a crest factor” which indicates how much the peaks deviate from its average value).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Parkin discloses: wherein limiting capturing to the voltage waveforms of the predetermined number of cycles around the present voltage waveform includes: calculating, by utilizing the statistics module, out of range data comprising the one or more statistical metrics of the preselected intervals in the captured predetermined number of cycles of voltage waveforms (col. 8, line 49 – col. 9, line 22; col. 17, lines 32-42; col. 19, line 40 – col. 20, line 22; col. 23, lines 16-26); timestamping, by utilizing the statistics module, the out of range data (col. 7, lines 39-55; col. 11, lines 26-38; col. 22, lines 51-67); locally storing, in memory of the PQ-Node, the captured voltage waveforms and the out of range data (col. 7, line 41 - col. 8, line 11; col. 26, lines 9-15; col. 30, lines 48-53); transmitting, by utilizing a communication module, the captured voltage waveforms and the timestamped out of range data to the remote computing device (col. 8, lines 12-63; col. 9, lines 43-47; col. 19, lines 40-55; col. 32, lines 47-61). As such, the modification of Parkin’s power quality node in view of Hummon’s teaching of the electricity meter renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Parkin discloses: wherein the range is a first range (e.g., the “Warning Region” or “alert region” the in Fig. 15, the values for these limits are determined by the specific parameter being measured), the method further comprising: determining, by utilizing the statistics module, a second range (e.g., the range defined by “Initial Std. Dev. Value” in Figs. 14 and 15) for the one or more statistical metrics based on the standard voltage waveform statistics (col. 14, lines 4-13; col. 16, lines 45-49; col. 18, lines 45-56; col. 19, lines 5-14), the second range being narrower than the first range (Figs. 14 and 15), determining, by utilizing the statistics module, whether the statistical value is outside of the second range (e.g., reaches the “Warning Region” or the “alarm Region” part of the predictive analysis region; see col. 18, line 45 – col. 19, line 39); and in response to determining that the statistical value is outside of the second range, limiting capturing, by utilizing the statistics module, to voltage waveforms of the predetermined number of cycles around the present voltage waveform having the statistical value outside of the second range (col. 8, lines 55-60; col. 15, lines 28-41; col. 17, lines 43 – col. 18, line 10; col. 19, lines 40-55; col. 22, line 51 – col. 23, line 3; col. 23, lines 15-26; col. 30, lines 48-53; see also Fig. 19 and related text).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Parkin discloses: in response to determining that the statistical value is outside of the second range and within the first range, limiting capturing, by utilizing the statistics module, to the voltage waveforms of the predetermined number of cycles around the present voltage waveform having the statistical value outside of the second range and within the first range (col. 8, lines 55-60; col. 15, lines 28-41; col. 17, lines 43 – col. 18, line 10; col. 19, lines 40-55; col. 22, line 51 – col. 23, line 3; col. 23, lines 15-26; col. 30, lines 48-53); calculating, by utilizing the statistics module, out of range data comprising the one or more statistical metrics of the captured voltage waveforms (col. 8, line 49 – col. 9, line 22; col. 17, lines 32-42; col. 19, line 40 – col. 20, line 22; col. 23, lines 16-26); timestamping, by utilizing the statistics module, the out of range data (col. 7, lines 39-55; col. 11, lines 26-38; col. 22, lines 51-67); locally storing, in the memory of the statistics module, the captured waveforms and the out of range data (col. 7, line 41 - col. 8, line 11; col. 26, lines 9-15; col. 30, lines 48-53); and transmitting, by utilizing the statistics module, the captured voltage waveforms and the timestamped out of range data to the remote computing device (col. 8, lines 12-63; col. 9, lines 43-47; col. 19, lines 40-55; col. 32, lines 47-61). As such, the modification of Parkin’s power quality node in view of Hummon’s teaching of the electricity meter renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Parkin discloses: wherein transmitting the captured voltage waveforms and the out of range data to the remote computing device includes: transmitting, by utilizing the statistics module, the captured voltage waveforms and the timestamped out of range data to the remote computing device periodically at a predetermined interval (col. 8, lines 12-63; col. 9, lines 43-47; col. 19, lines 40-55; col. 32, lines 47-61).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Parkin discloses: wherein calculating the statistical value of the one or more statistical metrics includes calculating a linear combination of statistical values (col. 10, lines 25-26).
Regarding claims 15-20 and 28, the combination of Parkin and Hummon renders the claimed invention obvious (see discussion for claims 1-14 and 26-27 above).
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Andersen (US 6459997 B1) -- Method For Event Analysis At An Intelligent Electronic Device.
Zheng et al. (CN 111797436 B) -- Energy-saving Data Counterfeit Identification Method Of Power Distribution System Energy-saving Device.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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 on (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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights