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 .
Status of the claims
The amendment received on February 18, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 6-8 are amended. Thus, claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed February 18, 2026 to claim 7 has overcome the objection.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 18, 2026 with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 18, 2026 with respect to the claim rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the claim rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 18, 2026 with respect to the claim rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the claim rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 18, 2026 with respect to claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the Applicant’s argument is related to current rejection, Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows:
On the page of 13, Applicant alleges that “even if Step 2B is reached, the amended claims recite additional elements individually and as an ordered combination-that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Applicant has argued that the abstract idea itself is significant. However, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Applicant has not, respectfully, demonstrated with evidence why the abstract idea itself would amount to more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements (or inventive steps) in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. Therefore, the pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)).
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 1-8 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computerized simulation validating method for a full- scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test, implemented by a real-time digital simulator (RTDS) coupled to measurement devices installed at a full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test site, the computerized simulation validating method comprising:
obtaining, by the RTDS from Common Format for Transient Data Exchange (COMTRADE) waveform files generated by the measurement devices, recorded waveforms and external characteristic parameters of field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test;
obtaining, by the RTDS using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)-based signal-processing algorithms, internal quantities of the field testing based on the recorded waveforms of the field testing;
obtaining, by the RTDS, recorded waveforms of simulation testing based on the external characteristic parameters by inputting the external characteristic parameters into a real-time simulation model of the distribution network that comprises an equivalent power source, a step- down transformer, a grounding transformer, an arc suppression coil, a distribution line, a circuit load, and a fault trigger control module, and executing the simulation model in real time;
obtaining, by the RTDS using the FFT-based signal-processing algorithms, internal quantities of the simulation testing based on the recorded waveforms of the simulation testing;
determining, by the RTDS, whether a field-testing result of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test is reproducible based on a relationship between the internal quantities of the field testing and the internal quantities of the simulation testing that includes verifying conformance of at least one unconventional quantity selected from negative- sequence current, line dielectric loss, phase current change, and multi-harmonic zero-sequence admittance; and
validating the field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test in case of the field-testing result being not reproducible by outputting a validation result indicating whether the field test setup satisfies a predefined normative criterion for full-scale ground fault testing;
wherein the external characteristic parameters comprise system capacitive current value, harmonic content, load condition, ground fault resistance value, and ground fault trigger angle,
wherein the internal quantities comprise three dimensions of steady-state quantities, transient quantities, and unconventional quantities,
wherein the unconventional quantities comprise negative-sequence current, line dielectric loss, phase current change, and multi-harmonic zero-sequence admittance.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the limitations of “obtaining by the RTDS using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)-based signal-processing algorithms, internal quantities of the field testing based on the recorded waveforms of the field testing (see paras. [0081]-[0082], [0084]: perform FFT calculation), S11 of instant application),” “obtaining, by the RTDS, recorded waveforms of simulation testing based on the external characteristic parameters by inputting the external characteristic parameters into a real-time simulation model of the distribution network that comprises an equivalent power source, a step- down transformer, a grounding transformer, an arc suppression coil, a distribution line, a circuit load, and a fault trigger control module, and executing the simulation model in real time (see para. [0086]: S12, para. [00168]: simulation model comprising above-described parameters of instant application)” and “obtaining, by the RTDS using the FFT-based signal-processing algorithms, internal quantities of the simulation testing based on the recorded waveforms of the simulation testing (see para. [0084]: perform FFT; paras. [0088]-[0089]: S13 of instant application)” are mathematical calculations.
Further, the limitation of “determining, by the RTDS, whether a field-testing result of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test is reproducible based on a relationship between the internal quantities of the field testing and the internal quantities of the simulation testing that includes verifying conformance of at least one unconventional quantity selected from negative- sequence current, line dielectric loss, phase current change, and multi-harmonic zero-sequence admittance (para. [0090]: S14)” and “validating the field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test in case of the field-testing result being not reproducible by outputting a validation result indicating whether the field test setup satisfies a predefined normative criterion for full-scale ground fault testing, wherein the external characteristic parameters comprise system capacitive current value, harmonic content, load condition, ground fault resistance value, and ground fault trigger angle (see para. [0080] of instant application), wherein the internal quantities comprise three dimensions of steady-state quantities, transient quantities, and unconventional quantities (see para. [0095] of instant application), wherein the unconventional quantities comprise negative-sequence current, line dielectric loss, phase current change, and multi-harmonic zero-sequence admittance (see paras. [0092]-[0098]: S15 of instant application)” are mental process (evaluation or judgement) based mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical concepts and/or human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 6-8.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a computerized simulation validating method for a full- scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test, implemented by a real-time digital simulator (RTDS) coupled to measurement devices installed at a full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test site (preamble); obtaining, by the RTDS from Common Format for Transient Data Exchange (COMTRADE) waveform files generated by the measurement devices, recorded waveforms and external characteristic parameters of field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test;
In Claim 6: a computerized simulation validating apparatus for a full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test (preamble); a memory; a processor;
In Claim 7: a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium storing instructions that when being executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the computerized simulation validating method of claim 1 (preamble); and
In Claim 8: a computerized simulation validating system for a full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test (preamble); a memory storing instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the instructions; obtain recorded waveforms and external characteristic parameters of field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to- ground fault test.
The additional elements such as a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium, memory, and one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, note that step of “obtaining, by the RTDS from Common Format for Transient Data Exchange (COMTRADE) waveform files generated by the measurement devices, recorded waveforms and external characteristic parameters of field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test” in claim 1 and “obtain recorded waveforms and external characteristic parameters of field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to- ground fault test” are insignificant (routine gathering data) extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Fan et al. (CN 110672945 A), Zhang et al. (CN 106093820 A), Yang et al. (CN 105158716 A), Shi et al. (CN113740791 A), Ling et al. (CN 110389535 A)). For example, Fan, Zhang, and Yang teach a computerized simulation validating method for a full- scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test, implemented by a real-time digital simulator (RTDS) coupled to measurement devices installed at a full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test site (page 2, lines 10-28 of Fan; page 4, lines 33-47, page 9, lines 26-35, and page 11, lines 20-22 of Zhang; page 4, lines 7-30 of Yang) and obtaining, by the RTDS from Common Format for Transient Data Exchange (COMTRADE) waveform files generated by the measurement devices, recorded waveforms and external characteristic parameters of field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test (page 2, lines 35-page 3, lines 33 of Fan; page 10, lines 19-25 of Zhang; page 4, lines 7-30 and page 4, lines 37-44 of Yang) in claims 1, 6, and 7.
Further, Fan, Zhang, Yang, Shi, and Ling teach obtaining recorded waveforms and external characteristic parameters of field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test (page 2, lines 35-page 3, lines 33 of Fan; page 10, lines 19-25 of Zhang; page 4, lines 7-30 and page 4, lines 37-44 of Yang; page 6, lines 34-37 of Shi; page 5, lines 41-42 of Ling) in claim 8. Therefore, independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2
The additional elements of “the steady-state quantities comprise: zero-sequence current and line zero-sequence admittance; and the transient quantities comprise: harmonic current and transient zero-sequence component” are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (see page 6, lines 24-43 of Feng et al. (CN 112731054A); page 5, line 38-page 6, lines 31 of Zhang et al. (CN109975657A).
Regarding claims 3-5,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations or mathematical calculation/mental process steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claims 3-5. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 1-8 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “validating the field testing of the full-scale distribution network single phase-to-ground fault test in case of the field-testing result being not reproducible by outputting a validation result indicating whether the field test setup satisfies a predefined normative criterion for full-scale ground fault testing; wherein the external characteristic parameters comprise system capacitive current value, harmonic content, load condition, ground fault resistance value, and ground fault trigger angle, wherein the internal quantities comprise three dimensions of steady-state quantities, transient quantities, and unconventional quantities, wherein the unconventional quantities comprise negative-sequence current, line dielectric loss, phase current change, and multi-harmonic zero-sequence admittance,” as currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5618. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858