DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Note
This case has been inherited from the previous examiner.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determine a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time interval via a statistical technique, identify, independent from the voltage waveform, a model waveform comprising a nominal grid frequency and representing an ideal reference voltage waveform established for the
utility grid absent local loading, impedance or transformer-induced distortion, determine a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on error metrics corresponding to a difference between the voltage waveform and the
model waveform, construct, for the time interval, a data structure comprising the first plurality of metrics, the second plurality of metrics, and an identifier for the location,” are abstract ideas as they recite limitations that involve a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent claims and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a metering system at a location downstream from a substation on a utility grid that distributes electricity, the metering system comprising memory and one or more processors to: receive data samples of a voltage waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at
the location,” “second metering system at a second location of the utility grid,” and “one or more sensors, the one or more sensors to measure the voltage waveform to provide the data samples,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims additionally recite “provide the data structure to a data processing system remote from the metering system to cause the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid based on the data structure and without transmission, to the data processing system, of the data samples collected at the metering system,” are merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity, also recited at high level of generality. The claims do not improve the functioning of any devices or machines and do not improve other technology under the practical application. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining metrics associated with metering system. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas, and not eligible. In short, the claims, recited broadly, do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a metering system at a location downstream from a substation on a utility grid that distributes electricity, the metering system comprising memory and one or more processors to: receive data samples of a voltage waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the location,” “second metering system at a second location of the utility grid,” and “one or more sensors, the one or more sensors to measure the voltage waveform to provide the data samples,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “provide the data structure to a data processing system remote from the metering system to cause the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid based on the data structure and without transmission, to the data processing system, of the data samples collected at the metering system,” are merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity, also recited at high level of generality, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/12/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20100082792) in view of Cook (US 20110156698), Lee (KR
20140013465), Heintz et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0232372 (hereinafter Heintz) and Watson (Use of smart-meter data to determine distribution system
topology).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a system (see Abstract: system),
comprising:
a metering system at located on a utility grid that distributes electricity (paragraph [0022]), the metering system comprising memory and one or more processors
(see paragraphs 0022-0023: IED/metering system includes controller/processor and
memory) to:
record a voltage waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the
location (see paragraphs 0022, 0026, and 0029: IED can be a meter device that records
and measures voltage waveforms; see paragraphs 0002 and 0049: IED installed in
customer's utility system, i.e. location in an energy distribution system);
determine a first characteristic metric for the voltage waveform over a time
interval (see paragraphs 0022 and 0032: determines a plurality characteristic, i.e.
including a voltage characteristic, to be transmitted at an interval);
determine a second characteristic metric for the voltage waveform over the time
interval (see paragraphs 0022 and 0032: determines a plurality of characteristics, i.e.
including a distortion characteristic, to be transmitted at an interval);
construct, for the time interval, a data structure comprising the first metrics, the second metrics, and an identifier for the location and provide the data structure to a data processing system remote from the metering system based on the data structure and without transmission, to the data processing system of the data samples collected at the metering system (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0033 and 0035: Each IED 104a-d transmits their corresponding unique identifier stored in their respective memory 110 to the central server 116a along with their measured data (214), i.e. previously discussed first metric and second metric; data had to be structured for its communication via HTTP protocol over TCP/IP).
Johnson does not expressly disclose wherein the metering system is at a
location downstream from a substation on a utility grid; receiving data samples of a voltage waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the location; wherein determining the first metric includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on a difference between the voltage waveform and a model waveform; and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid.
Cook discloses wherein the metering system is at a location downstream from a
substation on a utility grid (see paragraph 0004: substation transformers of a power
distribution system reduce voltage from a distribution grid to suitable levels for
consumers); and receiving data samples of a voltage waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the location (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0006 and 0021-0022: processor of digital power meter receives voltage samples corresponding to the power/electricity distributed to a customer/load).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Cook, placing the metering system downstream from a substation, for the
advantageous benefit of using an upstream substation to transform high-voltage
electricity from a power plant to safe voltage levels for consumer premises as well as
sampling the voltage value at a suitable sampling rate for accurate power measurements of the power meter.
Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose wherein determining the first metric
includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time
interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes identifying, independent from the voltage waveform, a model waveform comprising a nominal grid frequency and representing an ideal reference voltage waveform established for the utility grid absent local loading, impedance or transformer-induced distortion, determine a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on error metrics corresponding to a difference between the voltage waveform and the model waveform.
Lee discloses wherein determining total harmonic distortion, i.e. the previously
recited second metric, includes determining a metric for the voltage waveform over a
time interval based on a difference between the voltage waveform and a model
waveform (see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: detecting the harmonic signal from the
difference between the voltage signal and the fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
and a step of calculating Total Harmonic Distortion (THO) by using the harmonic signal
and the voltage signal).
Heintz discloses calculating the difference between extracted voltage and nominal voltage as well as extracted frequency and nominal frequency (Paragraphs [0008]-[0016]; Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Heintz and Lee, and identify, independent from the voltage waveform, a model waveform comprising a nominal grid frequency and representing an ideal reference voltage waveform established for the utility grid absent local loading, impedance or transformer-induced distortion, determine a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on error metrics corresponding to a difference between the voltage waveform and the model waveform, so as to properly take corrective actions due to power and frequency disturbances.
Johnson, Cook, Heintz and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein determining the first
metric includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a
time interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval; and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a
performance of the utility grid.
Watson discloses wherein determining the first metric includes determining a first
plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time interval via a statistical
technique (see page 2 left column last paragraph: recorded the maximum and minimum
voltages in each half-hourly period); wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval (see page 2 left column last paragraph and Fig. 5: also records THO, i.e. total harmonic distortion, for each half-hourly period); and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid (see Fig. 10 and pages 3-4 Section 3.3 first paragraph and page 5 section 4.1 first paragraph: uses obtained data samples from a plurality of customers to evaluate connectivity characteristics of the destitution system; page 6 right column last paragraph: central processing unit implements analysis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Watson, i.e. having a power meter record a plurality of voltage metrics and
THO metrics over a time period, for the advantageous benefit of using such data to
evaluate topology characteristics of a power distribution network.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses a method (see paragraph 0004:
method), comprising:
recording, by a metering system comprising memory and one or more
processors (see paragraphs 0022-0023: IED/metering system includes
controller/processor and memory), data samples of a voltage waveform corresponding
to electricity (see paragraphs 0022, 0026, and 0029: IED
can be a meter device that records and measures voltage waveforms; see paragraphs
0002 and 0049: IED installed in customer's utility system, i.e. location in an energy
distribution system);
determining, by the metering system, a first characteristic metric for the voltage
waveform over a time interval (see paragraphs 0022 and 0032: determines a plurality
characteristic, i.e. including a voltage characteristic, to be transmitted at an interval);
determining, by the metering system, a second characteristic metric for the
voltage waveform over the time interval (see paragraphs 0022 and 0032: determines a
plurality of characteristics, i.e. including a distortion characteristic, to be transmitted at
an interval); and constructing, by the metering system for the time interval, a data structure comprising the first metrics, the second metrics, and an identifier for the location and providing the data structure to a data processing system remote from the metering system, based on the data structure and without transmission, to the data processing system of the data samples collected at the metering system (see Fig. 2 and
paragraphs 0033 and 0035: Each IED 104a-d transmits their corresponding unique identifier stored in their respective memory 110 to the central server 116a along
with their measured data (214), i.e. previously discussed first metric and second metric;
data had to be structured for its communication via HTTP protocol over TCP/IP).
Johnson does not expressly disclose receiving data samples of the voltage
waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the location; wherein the metering system is at a location downstream from a substation on the utility grid; wherein determining the first metric includes determining a first plurality of
metrics for the voltage waveform over a time interval via a statistical technique;
wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of
metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on a difference between
the voltage waveform and a model waveform; and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid.
Cook discloses wherein the metering system is at a location downstream from a
substation on the utility grid (see paragraph 0004: substation transformers of a power
distribution system reduce voltage from a distribution grid to suitable levels for
consumers); and receiving data samples of the voltage waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the location (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0006 and 0021-0022: processor of digital power meter receives voltage samples corresponding to the power/electricity distributed to a customer/load).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Cook, placing the metering system downstream from a substation, for the
advantageous benefit of using an upstream substation to transform high-voltage
electricity from a power plant to safe voltage levels for consumer premises as well as
sampling the voltage value at a suitable sampling rate for accurate power
measurements of the power meter.
Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose wherein determining the first metric
includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time
interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes identifying, independent from the voltage waveform, a model waveform comprising a nominal grid frequency and representing an ideal reference voltage waveform established for the utility grid absent local loading, impedance or transformer-induced distortion, determine a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on error metrics corresponding to a difference between the voltage waveform and the model waveform.
Lee discloses wherein determining total harmonic distortion, i.e. the previously
recited second metric, includes determining a metric for the voltage waveform over a
time interval based on a difference between the voltage waveform and a model
waveform (see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: detecting the harmonic signal from the
difference between the voltage signal and the fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
and a step of calculating Total Harmonic Distortion (THO) by using the harmonic signal
and the voltage signal).
Heintz discloses calculating the difference between extracted voltage and nominal voltage as well as extracted frequency and nominal frequency (Paragraphs [0008]-[0016]; Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Heintz and Lee, and identify, independent from the voltage waveform, a model waveform comprising a nominal grid frequency and representing an ideal reference voltage waveform established for the utility grid absent local loading, impedance or transformer-induced distortion, determine a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on error metrics corresponding to a difference between the voltage waveform and the model waveform, so as to properly take corrective actions due to power and frequency disturbances.
Johnson, Cook, Heintz and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein determining the first
metric includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a
time interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval; and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a
performance of the utility grid.
Watson discloses wherein determining the first metric includes determining a first
plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time interval via a statistical
technique (see page 2 left column last paragraph: recorded the maximum and minimum
voltages in each half-hourly period); wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval (see page 2 left column last paragraph and Fig. 5: also records THO, i.e. total harmonic distortion, for each half-hourly period); and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid (see Fig. 10 and pages 3-4 Section 3.3 first paragraph and page 5 section 4.1 first paragraph: uses obtained data samples from a plurality of customers to evaluate connectivity characteristics of the destitution system; page 6 right column last paragraph: central processing unit implements analysis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Watson, i.e. having a power meter record a plurality of voltage metrics and
THO metrics over a time period, for the advantageous benefit of using such data to
evaluate topology characteristics of a power distribution network.
Regarding claim 19, Johnson discloses a non-transitory computer readable
storage medium comprising processor executable instructions that, when executed by
one or more processors of a metering system (see paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0051:
IED/metering system includes controller/processor and memory with machine readable
instructions), cause the metering system to:
record a voltage waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the
location (see paragraphs 0022, 0026, and 0029: IED can be a meter device that records
and measures voltage waveforms; see paragraphs 0002 and 0049: IED installed in
customer's utility system, i.e. location in an energy distribution system);
determine a first characteristic metric for the voltage waveform over a time
interval (see paragraphs 0022 and 0032: determines a plurality characteristic, i.e.
including a voltage characteristic, to be transmitted at an interval);
determine a second characteristic metric for the voltage waveform over the time
interval (see paragraphs 0022 and 0032: determines a plurality of characteristics, i.e.
including a distortion characteristic, to be transmitted at an interval);
construct, for the time interval, a data structure comprising the first metrics, the second metrics, and an identifier for the location and provide the data structure to a data processing system remote from the metering system, based on the data structure and without transmission, to the data processing system of the data samples collected at the metering system (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0033 and 0035: Each IED 104a-d transmits their corresponding unique identifier stored in their respective memory 110 to the central server 116a along with their measured data (214), i.e. previously discussed first metric and second metric; data had to be structured for its communication via HTTP protocol over TCP/IP).
Johnson does not expressly disclose receiving data samples of a voltage
waveform corresponding to the electricity distributed at the location; wherein determining the first metric includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on a difference between the voltage waveform and a model waveform; and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid.
Cook discloses receiving data samples of a voltage waveform corresponding to
the electricity distributed at the location (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0006 and 0021-
0022: processor of digital power meter receives voltage samples corresponding to the
power/electricity distributed to a customer/load).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Cook, placing the metering system downstream from a substation, for the
advantageous benefit of using an upstream substation to transform high-voltage
electricity from a power plant to safe voltage levels for consumer premises as well as
sampling the voltage value at a suitable sampling rate for accurate power
measurements of the power meter.
Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose wherein determining the first metric
includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time
interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes identifying, independent from the voltage waveform, a model waveform comprising a nominal grid frequency and representing an ideal reference voltage waveform established for the utility grid absent local loading, impedance or transformer-induced distortion, determine a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on error metrics corresponding to a difference between the voltage waveform and the model waveform.
Lee discloses wherein determining total harmonic distortion, i.e. the previously
recited second metric, includes determining a metric for the voltage waveform over a
time interval based on a difference between the voltage waveform and a model
waveform (see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: detecting the harmonic signal from the
difference between the voltage signal and the fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
and a step of calculating Total Harmonic Distortion (THO) by using the harmonic signal
and the voltage signal).
Heintz discloses calculating the difference between extracted voltage and nominal voltage as well as extracted frequency and nominal frequency (Paragraphs [0008]-[0016]; Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Heintz and Lee, and identify, independent from the voltage waveform, a model waveform comprising a nominal grid frequency and representing an ideal reference voltage waveform established for the utility grid absent local loading, impedance or transformer-induced distortion, determine a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval based on error metrics corresponding to a difference between the voltage waveform and the model waveform, so as to properly take corrective actions due to power and frequency disturbances.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Johnson, Cook, Heintz and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein determining the first
metric includes determining a first plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a
time interval via a statistical technique; wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval; and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a
performance of the utility grid.
Watson discloses wherein determining the first metric includes determining a first
plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over a time interval via a statistical
technique (see page 2 left column last paragraph: recorded the maximum and minimum
voltages in each half-hourly period); wherein determining the second metric includes determining a second plurality of metrics for the voltage waveform over the time interval (see page 2 left column last paragraph and Fig. 5: also records THO, i.e. total harmonic distortion, for each half-hourly period); and wherein the providing causes the data processing system to evaluate a performance of the utility grid (see Fig. 10 and pages 3-4 Section 3.3 first paragraph and page 5 section 4.1 first paragraph: uses obtained data samples from a plurality of customers to evaluate connectivity characteristics of the destitution system; page 6 right column last paragraph: central processing unit implements analysis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Watson, i.e. having a power meter record a plurality of voltage metrics and
THO metrics over a time period, for the advantageous benefit of using such data to
evaluate topology characteristics of a power distribution network.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose wherein the
metering system to generate the model waveform based on a sinusoidal waveform.
Lee discloses wherein the metering system to generate the model waveform
based on a sinusoidal waveform (see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: fundamental
frequency is generated from a voltage signal which is used to generate a fundamental
frequency sinusoidal signal, i.e. previously discussed model waveform, sinusoidal signal
is based on a sinusoidal waveform).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose generating,
by the metering system, the model waveform based on a sinusoidal waveform.
Lee discloses generating, by a metering system, the model waveform based on a
sinusoidal waveform (see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: fundamental frequency is
generated from a voltage signal which is used to generate a fundamental frequency
sinusoidal signal, i.e. previously discussed model waveform, sinusoidal signal is based
on a sinusoidal waveform).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Regarding claim 20, Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose generating
the model waveform based on a sinusoidal waveform.
Lee discloses generating the model waveform based on a sinusoidal waveform
(see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: fundamental frequency is generated from a
voltage signal which is used to generate a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal, i.e.
previously discussed model waveform, sinusoidal signal is based on a sinusoidal
waveform).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose wherein the
metering system to fit a sinusoidal waveform to the voltage waveform to generate the
model waveform.
Lee discloses wherein the metering system to fit a sinusoidal waveform to the
voltage waveform to generate the model waveform (see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-
27: fundamental frequency is generated from a voltage signal which is used to generate
a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal, i.e. previously discussed model waveform,
disclosed process fits a sinusoidal waveform the voltage waveform as it is a generated
fundamental frequency with respect to the voltage signal fo the target).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose fitting, by the
metering system, a sinusoidal waveform to the voltage waveform to generate the model
waveform.
Lee discloses fitting, by a metering system, a sinusoidal waveform to the voltage
waveform to generate the model waveform (see Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27:
fundamental frequency is generated from a voltage signal which is used to generate a
fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal, i.e. previously discussed model waveform,
disclosed process fits a sinusoidal waveform the voltage waveform as it is a generated
fundamental frequency with respect to the voltage signal for the target).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Johnson discloses provide, i.e. providing by the
metering system, the data structure to the data processing system over a batch upload
process (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0033 and 0035: Each IED 104a-d transmits their
corresponding unique identifier stored in their respective memory 110 to the central
server 116a along with their measured data (214), i.e. previously discussed first metric
and second metric; data had to be structured for its communication via HTTP protocol
over TCP/IP, see paragraph 0044: monthly uploading)
Johnson, Cook, and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein the data structure
comprises a plurality of data structures; generate, i.e. generating by the metering system, a first data structure of the plurality of data structures with first values for the first plurality of metrics over a first time interval of the voltage waveform, and first values for the second plurality of metrics over the first time interval of the voltage waveform;
generate, i.e. generating by the metering system, a second data structure of the
plurality of data structures with second values for the first plurality of metrics over a
second time interval of the voltage waveform, and second values for the second
plurality of metrics over the second time interval of the voltage waveform;
generate, generating by the metering system, a third data structure of the
plurality of data structures with third values for the first plurality of metrics over a third
time interval of the voltage waveform, and third values for the second plurality of metrics
over the third time interval of the voltage waveform; wherein the data structure comprises the plurality of data structures.
Watson discloses wherein a data structure comprises a plurality of data
structures (see Fig. 5: graph is segmented into a plurality of time sample number
segments); generate, i.e. generating by the metering system, a first data structure of the
plurality of data structures with first values for the second plurality of metrics over the
first time interval of the voltage waveform (see Fig. 5: graph is segmented into a plurality
of time sample number segments, 0-499 could be considered the first data structure);
generate, i.e. generating by the metering system, a second data structure of the
plurality of data structures with second values for the second plurality of metrics over
the second time interval of the voltage waveform (see Fig. 5: graph is segmented into a
plurality of time sample number segments, 500-999 could be considered the second
data structure); generate, generating by the metering system, a third data structure of the plurality of data structures with third values for the second plurality of metrics over the third time interval of the voltage waveform (see Fig. 5: graph is segmented into a
plurality of time sample number segments, 1000-1499 could be considered the third
data structure); wherein the data structure comprises the plurality of data structures (see Fig. 5: complete graph comprises the plurality of data structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Watson, i.e. segmenting the data into time sample number segments, for
the advantageous benefit visually classifying and recording time increments associated
with the recorded data. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to apply the same
segmentation taught by Watson to the first plurality of metrics to create first values,
second values, and third values for the first plurality of metrics for different time intervals
since they are sampled as the same frequency as the THO values, thus teaching the
claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Johnson, previously modified, further discloses a
second metering system at a second location on the utility grid (see Fig. 1 and
paragraph 0022: discloses a plurality of IEDs/meters, including a second meter at a
second physical location, as they are physical meters) to:
generate, i.e. generating by a second metering system, a second data structure
with values for the first plurality of metrics over the time interval of a second voltage
waveform, and values for the second plurality of metrics over the time interval of the
second voltage waveform and provide, i.e. providing by the second metering system,
the second data structure to the data processing system (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs
0033 and 0035: Each IED 104a-d, including the second meter, transmits their
corresponding unique identifier stored in their respective memory 110 to the central
server 116a along with their measured data (214), i.e. previously discussed and
modified first plurality of metrics and second plurality of metrics; data had to be
structured for its communication via HTTP protocol over TCP/IP); and
a third metering system at a third location on the utility grid (see Fig. 1 and
paragraph 0022: discloses a plurality of IEDs/meters, including a second meter at a
second physical location, as they are physical meters) to:
generate, i.e. generating by a third metering system, a third data structure with
values for the first plurality of metrics over the time interval of a third voltage waveform,
and values for the second plurality of metrics over the time interval of the third voltage
waveform and provide, i.e. providing by the third metering system, the third data
structure to the data processing system (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0033 and 0035:
Each IED 104a-d, including the second meter, transmits their corresponding
unique identifier stored in their respective memory 110 to the central server 116a along
with their measured data (214), i.e. previously discussed and modified first plurality of
metrics and second plurality of metrics; data had to be structured for its communication
via HTTP protocol over TCP/IP).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Johnson, Cook, and Lee do not expressly disclose
wherein the data processing system determines, i.e. determining by the data processing
system, a topological relationship between the metering system, the second metering
system, and the third metering system based on the data structure, the second data
structure, and the third data structure.
Watson discloses disclose wherein a data processing system determines, i.e.
determining by a data processing system, a topological relationship between the
metering system, the second metering system, and the third metering system based on
the data structure, the second data structure, and the third data structure (see Fig. 10
and pages 3-4 Section 3.3 first paragraph and page 5 section 4.1 first paragraph: uses
obtained data samples from a plurality of customers/meters to evaluate connectivity
characteristics of the destitution system; page 6 right column last paragraph: central
processing unit implements analysis; see Fig. 5 compares data from 4 meters, i.e.
includes first second and third, in relation to determining transformer/phase
connections).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Watson, i.e. having a power meter record a plurality of voltage metrics and
THO metrics over a time period, for the advantageous benefit of using such data to
evaluate topology characteristics of a power distribution network.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson, previously modified to take samples, further
discloses wherein the metering system comprises one or more sensors to measure the
voltage waveform to provide the data samples (see paragraph 0022: sensors for
measuring characteristic, which includes voltage).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson, previously modified to take samples, further
discloses detecting, by one or more sensors of the metering system, the voltage
waveform to provide the data samples (see paragraph 0022: sensors for measuring
characteristic, which includes voltage).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson, previously modified to take samples, further
wherein the metering system is communicatively coupled with one or more sensors, the
one or more sensors to measure the voltage waveform to provide the data samples
(see paragraph 0022: sensors for measuring characteristic, which includes voltage, i.e.
a voltage sensor, gathers voltage data for the meter).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson, previously modified to take samples, further
wherein the metering system is communicatively coupled with one or more sensors,
comprising detecting, by the one or more sensors, the voltage waveform to provide the
data samples (see paragraph 0022: sensors for measuring characteristic, which
includes voltage, i.e. a voltage sensor, gathers voltage data for the meter).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose wherein the
metering system to generate at least one of the second plurality of metrics based on an
error metric between the voltage waveform and the model waveform, wherein the model waveform is fit to the voltage waveform based on a sinusoidal waveform to the voltage waveform.
Lee discloses wherein the metering system to generate at least one of the
second plurality of metrics based on an error metric between the voltage waveform and
the model waveform fit based on a sinusoidal waveform to the voltage waveform (see
Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: calculating Total Harmonic Distortion (THO) by us a
difference, i.e. an error metric, between the voltage waveform and fundamental
sinusoidal signal/model waveform; fundamental frequency is generated from a voltage signal which is used to generate a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal, i.e. previously discussed model waveform, disclosed process fits a sinusoidal waveform the voltage waveform as it is a generated fundamental frequency with respect to the voltage signal fo the target).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson and Cook do not expressly disclose wherein the
metering system to generate at least one of the second plurality of metrics based on at
least one of a mean amplitude or a mean frequency of the model waveform, wherein the model waveform is fit to the voltage waveform based on a sinusoidal waveform to the voltage waveform.
Lee discloses wherein the metering system to generate at least one of the
second plurality of metrics based on at least one of a mean amplitude or a mean
frequency of the model waveform fit based on a sinusoidal waveform to the voltage
waveform ((see
Abstract and page 3 lines 24-27: calculating Total Harmonic Distortion (THO) by us a
difference, i.e. an error metric, between the voltage waveform and fundamental
sinusoidal signal/model waveform; fundamental frequency is generated from a voltage signal which is used to generate a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal, i.e. previously discussed model waveform, disclosed process fits a sinusoidal waveform the voltage waveform as it is a generated fundamental frequency with respect to the voltage signal fo the target).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson with the
teachings of Lee, i.e. determining toral harmonic distortion of a signal by determining a
difference between the voltage signal and a fundamental frequency sinusoidal signal,
for the advantageous benefit using an accurate method to obtain total harmonic
distortion when compared to a FFT calculation method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
With respect to the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of “evaluating a performance of the utility grid”. Notably, the claims are similar to the ineligible claims of the Electric Power Grp vs Alstom, (119 USPQ2d 1739, 830 F.3d 1350 (2016)).
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “evaluating a performance of the utility grid” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101. In the instant application, the claims are generically recited, as they do not even recite in sufficient details as to how to evaluate a performance of the utility grid.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “evaluating a performance of the utility grid” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
various limitations as discussed in the rejection. However, said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea and insignificant data transferring, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional sensors in metering of utility grid system, and general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information (unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation).
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with the various sensors and processor, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said sensors and processor, as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “evaluating a performance of the utility grid”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those sensors and processing device, etc as tools. In other words, the Applicant is basically claiming the algorithm itself.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology due to lack of sufficient details in how the performance of the utility grid is being evaluated, such as using generic statistical technique. Additionally, the claims are at most an improvement in the abstract idea of evaluating the performance of utility grid. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea and not eligible.
Finally, limiting the claims to the technological environment of utility monitoring, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “evaluating a performance of the utility grid”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights