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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 11/03/2025, are accepted and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Rejection, Applicant has amended the claims and therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However new rejections under 112(b) are presented below as a result of the amendments. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection, Applicant argues, that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. Examiner notes that Applicant has amended the claims to determining instead of aggregating. Consistent with case law, Examiner notes that this concept of determining, identifying, generating ( e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment-i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category"); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that "humans have always performed these functions"); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining "the collection, storage, and recognition of data" to be abstract); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (determining the parsing, comparing, storing, and editing of data to be abstract). Therefore Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the additional elements in the claims need to integrate the abstract idea into practical application, and Examiner views that the claims do not recite such additional elements and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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. With respect to Claim 1, 11, 20 the limitations determining, based on the first weather forecast data, first sets of geographic sub-area weather forecast data, a first set of geographic sub-area weather forecast data including weather forecast data for a geographic sub-area; identifying first sets of features for the multiple geographic sub-areas for an outage prediction deep neural network trained to predict a number of electrical asset outages, a first set of features including a first set of geographic sub-area weather forecast data for a geographic sub-area, a total number of the multiple electrical assets in the geographic sub-area, and land use or land cover data for the geographic sub-area, the land use or land cover data including a first land use or land cover classification and a second land use or land cover classification; generating, at a first time, first predictions of numbers of electrical asset outages for the multiple geographic sub-areas, the generating including providing the first sets of features to the outage prediction deep neural network and receiving from the outage prediction deep neural network the first predictions of the numbers of electrical asset outages for the multiple geographic sub-areas; determining, based on the first predictions of the numbers of electrical asset outages for the multiple geographic sub-areas, a first predicted total number of electrical asset outages for the geographic area; and This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.In particular, the claim recites the additional element – receiving multiple geographic sub-areas, the multiple geographic sub-areas obtained by a division of a geographic area into the multiple geographic sub-areas, the geographic area including multiple electrical assets of one or more electrical power distribution infrastructures; receiving first weather forecast data from one or more weather forecast services; generating and providing a first report, the first report including the first predicted total number of electrical asset outages for the geographic area. These limitations are viewed as insignificant pre and post solution activity and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner notes the claims further recite the additional elements A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions, the executable instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method, the method comprising: A system comprising at least one processor; and memory containing instructions, the instructions being executable by the at least one processor to These limitations are viewed as generic computer structures and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Moreover Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to maintenance component. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Asnagnostou (US 2019/0228362 A1) Guikema (US 2022/0029418 A1) Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Claims 2-10, 12-19 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 , 11, 20 recite “and land use or land cover data for the geographic sub-area, the land use or land cover data including a first land use or land cover classification and a second land use or land cover classification “ This limitation gives the option for land use or land cover data. The claim further recites “the land use or land cover data including a first land use or land cover classification and a second land use or land cover classification. As claimed the lang use can include the land cover classification, and the land cover data can include the first land use, which does not make sense. Furthermore the limitation concerning first and second is not clear since it is not clear if first and second are referring to the just the land use or both the land cover classification. Similarly it is not clear if “classification” is referring to both the land use and land cover data or if it is referring to only the land cover classification and is therefore indefinite. Furthermore the claim allows for the situation for including land cover classification and a second land use. In this situation it is not clear if there is a first land use when requiring a second land use and is therefore indefinite. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lubkeman (US 2005/0096856 A1) teaches determining an interconnection model of an electric utility power circuit, the power circuit comprising power circuit components, determining information indicative of weather susceptibility of the power circuit components, determining a weather prediction, and determining a predicted maintenance parameter based on the interconnection model, the weather susceptibility information, and the weather prediction. Sun (US 2022/0236451 A1) teaches a system for a region including a processor to receive data including weather and component data. Generate a dataset for the region to identify weather events and a plurality of model forcings converted into tabular form. A machine learning (ML) model for each model forcing for each component uses dataset. Iteratively, for each weather event: identify for each component a corresponding model forcing with weather variables. Generate an output value for ML model corresponding to the identified components to the set of weather variables and update ML model. Receive observed data over time periods of an impending weather (IW) event. Iteratively, for each time period: identify, for each component a corresponding model forcing with weather variables and update ML model. Generate for the updated ML model, an output value predicting a component status as a failed or not failed for the time period. Some outage prediction methods for electric power distribution systems can include predicting a total number of line outages, or total time of outage for a specific area within a specific time interval. Pal (US 2021/0126452 A1) teaches systems and methods for assessing reliability of electrical power transmission systems are provided. Embodiments disclosed herein use Outage Impact Index (OII), a new reliability indicator, to identify periodic (e.g., annual) system risks in transmission systems of a bulk power system (BPS) for a given voltage class. OII provides key performance indices which can be used by power utilities to quantify and assess transmission system performance, establish baselines from chronological trends, and minimize system risks by developing corrective measures to address any identified system issues. Another widely used transmission reliability index in the electric power industry is forced outage per hundred miles per year (FOHMY). FOHMY is an average annual ratio which relates the number of forced outages to the circuit mileage of the line.
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.
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 YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857