DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A system for monitoring distortion in a sinusoidal electrical power signal, comprising:
a signal interface configured to receive a time-varying sinusoidal input signal having a fundamental frequency;
a processor configured to:
compute a derivative of the input signal;
generate a two-dimensional circular trajectory representation by plotting the input signal and a scaled version of the derivative of the input signal on orthogonal axes of a coordinate plane such that, for a distortion-free sinusoidal signal, the circular trajectory forms a constant-radius circle corresponding to an amplitude of the input signal;
determine, for successive sampled values of the input signal, a radial distance of points of the circular trajectory from an origin of the coordinate plane;
compare the radial distance to a predefined radial band corresponding to acceptable amplitude variation; and
detect a distortion in the input signal when the radial distance deviates from the predefined radial band; and
an output interface configured to generate a distortion indication in response to detection of the distortion.
Claim 7 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method for monitoring distortion in a sinusoidal electrical power signal, comprising:
receiving a time-varying sinusoidal input signal having a fundamental frequency;
computing, using a processor, a derivative of the input signal;
generating, using the processor, a two-dimensional circular trajectory representation by plotting the input signal and a scaled version of the derivative of the input signal on orthogonal axes of a coordinate plane such that, for a distortion-free sinusoidal signal, the circular trajectory forms a constant-radius circle corresponding to an amplitude of the input signal;
determining, for successive sampled values of the input signal, a radial distance of points of the circular trajectory from an origin of the coordinate plane;
comparing the radial distance to a predefined radial band corresponding to acceptable amplitude variation; and
detecting a distortion in the input signal when the radial distance deviates from the predefined radial band.
Claim 13 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a time-varying sinusoidal input signal having a fundamental frequency;
compute a derivative of the input signal;
generate a two-dimensional circular trajectory representation by plotting the input signal and a scaled version of the derivative of the input signal on orthogonal axes of a coordinate plane such that, for a distortion-free sinusoidal signal, the circular trajectory forms a constant-radius circle corresponding to an amplitude of the input signal;
determine, for successive sampled values of the input signal, a radial distance of points of the circular trajectory from an origin of the coordinate plane;
compare the radial distance to a predefined radial band corresponding to acceptable amplitude variation; and
detect a distortion in the input signal when the radial distance deviates from the predefined radial band.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the system, i.e. signal interface, processor, output interface, and non-transitory computer readable medium do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of generating a distortion indication equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data reporting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) 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 abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, further define the type of data being processed by the algorithm, and/or insignificant data gathering/sampling techniques. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Furthermore, dependent claim 20 does not equate to a practical application as it does not apply the abstract idea to a practical application or recite something significantly more than the recited abstract idea as it merely indicates that an alternative algorithm is not utilized in the current algorithm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims recite patent-eligible subject matter as they do not merely collect and analyze information. Applicant indicates that the claim requires transformation of a physical electrical waveform into a geometric representation to detect distortion. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner does not view this a physical transformation of an electrical waveform. A physical transformation of an electrical waveform could be accomplished by transforming an A/C electrical input into a suitable DC electrical output. The current set of claims do not physically alter an electrical waveform. Furthermore, independent claim 13 does not even expressly indicate that the signal being monitored is a power signal.
Applicant argues that the mathematical relationships are integrated into a practical application in relation to monitoring distortion. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim do not expressly recite a practical application, i.e. using sensor to monitor power signals in a power distribution system, using the recited abstract ides to identify a distortion in the signal, and tripping a circuit breaker/actuating a protecting element/altering an energy source to stabilize the power signal. The claim encompasses the algorithm/abstract idea for identifying a distortion in a received signal, but do not expressly include a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the cited reference Donolo confirms that the claimed subject matter resides in a technical engineering field. This argument is not persuasive as it does not serve to point out how the current set of claims include limitations that tie the identified abstract idea to a practical application.
Applicant argues that claims recite a specific, technically rooted solution to a problem arising in electrical signal monitoring and do not preempt the abstract concept of mathematical analysis. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite a particular system being monitored, particular sensor for generating the particular electrical power signal, what type of electrical power signal is being monitored, any physical actions or responses taken to correct any identified distortions, nor what particular distortions are sought to be monitored. The claims equate to a system/computer that receives a signal and analyzes the received signal using the highlighted abstract limitations. Furthermore, independent claim 13 does not even expressly indicate that the signal being monitored is a power signal.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention overcomes the prior 112 Claim Rejections. The examiner agrees, the prior 112 Claim Rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention overcomes the prior 103 Claim Rejections. The examiner agrees, the prior 130 Claim Rejections have been withdrawn.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (US 20140375241) discloses that a Lissajous figured between two signals can be used to detect abnormalities when it deviates from an ideal circle.
Malvern (US 5909273) discloses generating a Lissajous figure, i.e. circular plot, using a derivative of a signal and a second derivative of a signal. This could be considered a Lissajous figure of a signal and its derivative, however the derivative is not scaled, nor does it use its Lissajous figure to identify distortions in a power signal using the same radius analysis of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 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 J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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 J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857