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 .
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending.
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Examiner decided to withdraw claims objection because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejections.
Examiner maintain 112 rejection and 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page 11 applicants argues “It is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the "short term" refers to days, e.g. on a weekly time scale, based on industrial standards, such as in section 3.4 of the prior art "Technical specification for short term and ultra-short term load forecasting in power grid", which specifies that "short term load forecasting" refers to "mainly the next-day load forecasting, extendable to the 8th day,..." It is also known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the medium/long terms refer to -month/year time scales. paragraph [0043] of the specification recites "However, the above method does not fully explain the optimization part of11 the medium-term and long-term maintenance plan, and how to obtain the boundary required for annual and monthly check is still an unsolved problem", it can be learned therefrom that "medium-term" corresponds to monthly, and "long-term" corresponds to annually. Examiner respectfully disagree because those terms are not well known and specification is silent regarding the terms. It’s a relative terms.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT under 35 USC 101
In response to Applicant’s Argument, Section 101 defines patentable subject matter: “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception” that “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, the abstract idea exception has deep roots in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601-602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010) (citing Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 174–175 (1853)). To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts; 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity; and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Therefore, arguments are moot. (Please see MPEP 2106.04(a).
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office has not identified the specific limitations considered or any rationale as to why these limitations are not enough to qualify as significantly more, examiner refers to language of Enfish for determining whether the additional elements such a “acquiring, clustering and calculating” do not amount to 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 and 9-10 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.
The term “medium-term” and “long-term” in claims 1, 9-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “medium-term” and “long-term” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no boundary define by the specification. Dependent claims did not define by the terms. Dependent claims also rejected.
The term “largest load value” in claims 1, 9-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “largest load value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no boundary define by the specification. Dependent claims did not define by the terms. Dependent claims also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising a combination of “acquiring…”, “clustering…”, “acquiring…” and “calculating…” is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “clustering the predicted load value and the historical load values through a clustering algorithm, and selecting a historical moment at which a historical load value is in a same cluster as the predicted load value and has a largest load value among the historical load values as a target historical moment” and “calculating ground state power flow data of the power grid based on the future- state power grid operation mode model, and carrying out safety check on the medium- term and long-term maintenance plan of the power grid according to a preset ground state power flow limit”. These limitations - a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. ((see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).). Applicant uses “operation mode model” without any characterization. Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mathematical concepts performed by humans and claims that recite mathematical processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “acquiring a predicted load value and one or more historical load values of the power grid”; and “acquiring a power grid operation mode model at the target historical moment, and updating the power grid operation mode model according to the maintenance plan and open loop point information by using a full wiring approach, to obtain a future-state power grid operation mode model”
The method of acquiring a predicted load values…. or acquiring a power grid operation mode model…. are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation receiving data, clustering, calculating and model at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, 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 “acquiring predicted load value or acquiring a power grid operation mode model” no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Receiving data by the processor as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The “model” limitation, as discussed above, represents mere data output and is a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see USPGPUB US 20020188387 A1) and see 2106.05.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 10 has similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claims 2, 11 and 17, recites the limitations “wherein acquiring historical load values of a power grid comprises: acquiring load data of one or more buses in the power grid at least one of the historical moments; filtering out abnormal data in each load data of the one or more buses through a density clustering algorithm; obtaining normal load data of each of the buses, and taking an intersection set of historical moment sets corresponding to the normal load data of the buses to obtain a sample time set; and when the sample time set is not an empty set, taking the load data set of each historical moment in the sample time set as a historical load value at the corresponding historical moment; or when the sample time set is an empty set, taking an intersection set for each two of the historical moment sets corresponding to the normal load data of the buses, to obtain at least one check intersection set, taking a union set for one or more buses, each with less normal load data in each two of the buses corresponding to an empty one of at least one check intersection set, to obtain a check union set, removing the one or more buses in the check union set from all the buses in the power grid, and recalculating the sample time set”, it’s a data gathering and it can be done with pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea ((see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 3, 12 and 18, recites the limitations “wherein the density clustering algorithm is a Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm”. It’s a mathematical concept and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claims 4, 13 and 19, recites the limitations “wherein the clustering algorithm is a K- MEANS clustering algorithm, a K_MEANS++ clustering algorithm or a M_K_MEANS clustering algorithm”. It’s a mathematical concept and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claims 5, 14 and 20, recites the limitations “ wherein updating the power grid operation mode model according to the maintenance plan and open loop point information by using a full wiring approach to obtain a future-state power grid operation mode model comprises: connecting, based on the power grid operation mode model at the target historical moment, all unconnected power grid equipment to the power grid according to the shortest access path through topology analysis by adopting a breadth-first traversal approach; and removing maintenance equipment from the power grid according to the maintenance plan, disconnecting open loop point equipment according to the open loop point information, and updating the power grid operation mode model to obtain the future-state power grid operation mode model”, it’s a data gathering and it can be done with pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea ((see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 6, 15 and 21, recites the limitations “wherein calculating ground state power flow data of the power grid based on the future-state power grid operation mode model comprises: calculating the ground state power flow data of the power grid through a PQ decomposition method based on the future-state power grid operation mode model”. It’s a mathematical concept and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 7, recites the limitations “wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following: calculating N-1 data of the power grid based on the future-state power grid operation mode model, and carrying out safety check on the medium-term and long- term maintenance plan of the power grid according to the N-1 data of the power grid and a preset N-1 data limit; calculating N-2 data of the power grid based on the future-state power grid operation mode model, and carrying out safety check on the medium-term and long- term maintenance plan of the power grid according to the N-2 data of the power grid and a preset N-2 data limit; calculating fault group data of the power grid based on the future-state power grid operation mode model; and carrying out safety check on the medium-term and long-term maintenance plan of the power grid according to the fault group data of the power grid and a preset fault group data limit; calculating same-rod equipment data of the power grid based on the future-state power grid operation mode model; and carrying out safety check on the medium-term and long-term maintenance plan of the power grid according to the same-rod equipment data of the power grid and a preset same-rod equipment data limit; and calculating section data of the power grid based on the future-state power grid operation mode model; and carrying out safety check on the medium-term and long-term maintenance plan of the power grid according to the section data of the power grid and a preset section data limit”. It’s a mathematical concept and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Woestman et al USPGPUB 2002/0188387 teaches a system to provide energy management for an electric vehicle (EV) and a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV). The HEV control strategy of the present invention accommodates the goals of fuel economy while always meeting driver demand for power and maintaining the functionality of the traction motor battery system using battery parameter controllers. In the preferred embodiment of the present strategy, a vehicle system controller tightly integrates the navigation system information with energy management while en route to a known destination. Present vehicle location is continuously monitored, expectations of driver demand are determined, and vehicle accommodations are made. The system can be configured to includes as part of its present vehicle location data on road patterns, geography with date and time, altitude changes, speed limits, driving patterns of a vehicle driver, and weather. The vehicle accommodations can be configured to use discrete control laws, fuzzy logic, or neural networks.
Pipponen et al. USPGPUB 2011/0224859 teaches a method for using a mining vehicle, arrangement in a mine, rock drilling rig, and mining vehicle. Tasks according to a work cycle are performed at work sites with a mining work device in a mining vehicle. At the work site, the vehicle is connected to an external electrical network. An energy storage of the vehicle is charged during the work cycle defined by a excavation plan, when the vehicle is at a work site. After the work cycle is done, electricity obtained from the energy storage is used in a transfer drive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights