DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/253033 filed on May 15, 2023 in which Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending, of which Claims 16-18 are rejected under 103. Claim 18 is rejected under Alice 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 19-21 are allowed.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Upon searching a variety of databases, the examiner considers “enhancing recovery of at least a portion of the power failures through distributed generation and storage, wherein the portion of the power failures to be enhanced is selected based upon the different failure severity characterizations”, in Claim 1; “the improving comprises enhancing recovery of at least a portion of the power failures through distributed generation and storage”, in Claim 5; and “enhancing recovery of at least a portion of the power failure events through distributed generation and storage, wherein the portion of the power failure events to be enhanced is selected based upon the power failure events' respective severity”, in Claim 14; in conjunction with all other limitations of the dependent and independent claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record (PTO-892). Therefore, claims 1-15 and 19-21 are hereby allowed.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 18 recites:
using a data-driven tool to make regulatory decisions
data-driven tool comprising a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to severity of power failure events
wherein the regulatory decisions comprise approving grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources based upon the data driven recovery scaling law
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘using…..to make’ limitation in # 23 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “using…..to make” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing data to generate a conclusion.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
a data driven tool
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
The ‘the regulatory decisions comprise approving grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources based upon the data driven recovery scaling law’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the regulatory decisions comprise approving grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources based upon the data driven recovery scaling law” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chillar (US Patent Application 2018/0204095) in view of Hui (US Patent Application 2016/0132397) and further in view of Anderson (US Patent 8,725,665).
Claim 16, Chillar teaches a method to compare/analyze an effectiveness of enhancement procedures or investments to prioritization of recovery of power failure events (View Chillar ¶ 6; evaluate and prioritize the significance and detectability failure models).
Chillar does not teach testing recovery performance of a first state of a grid; and testing recovery performance of a second state of a grid; wherein the second state of the grid comprises grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources over the first state of the grid.
However, Hui teaches testing recovery performance of a first state of a grid (View Hui ¶ 46; analyze power restoration notification for the power grid); and testing recovery performance of a second state of a grid (View Hui ¶ 46; determine current state of power grid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with testing recovery performance of a first state of a grid; and testing recovery performance of a second state of a grid since it is known that a grid is tested (View Hui ¶ 46). Such modification would have the grid to be tested for performance.
Chillar and Hui do not the second state of the grid comprises grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources over the first state of the grid.
However, Anderson teaches the second state of the grid comprises grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources over the first state of the grid (View Anderson Col. 4, Lines 16-53; electrical grid improvement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the second state of the grid comprises grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources over the first state of the grid since it is known that a grid can be improved (View Anderson Col. 4, Lines 16-53). Such modification would have the grid to be improved.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chillar (US Patent Application 2018/0204095) in view of Hui (US Patent Application 2016/0132397) in view of Anderson (US Patent 8,725,665) in view of Price (US Patent Application 2020/0153250) and further in view of in view of Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063).
Claim 17, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 16. Chillar, Hui and Anderson do not teach the grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources are a result of using a method of prioritizing the recovery of power failure events, the power failure events categorized by severity based upon the number of customers affected by each power failure event, using data analytics for recovery priorities, using granular and large-scale failure data from the distribution grid comprising developing a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to the severity of power failure events.
However, Price teaches the grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources are a result of using a method of prioritizing the recovery of power failure events (View Price ¶ 4; improve resilience; enable priority critical infrastructure facilities to continue to operate during large-scale long-term outages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources are a result of using a method of prioritizing the recovery of power failure events since it is known that a grid can be improved (View Price ¶ 4). Such modification would have the grid to be improved by prioritizing recovery.
Chillar, Hui, Anderson and Price do not teach the power failure events categorized by severity based upon the number of customers affected by each power failure event, using data analytics for recovery priorities, using granular and large-scale failure data from the distribution grid comprising developing a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to the severity of power failure events.
However, Ji teaches the power failure events categorized by severity based upon the number of customers affected by each power failure event (View Ji ¶ 163; number of customers affected), using data analytics for recovery priorities (View Ji ¶ 24, 155; evaluation uses large-scale data and novel data analytics), using granular and large-scale failure data from the distribution grid (View Ji ¶ 66, 87, 88; small data set, analytical formulation for large-scale failure) comprising developing a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to the severity of power failure events (View Ji ¶ 180; derive scaling law of recovery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the power failure events categorized by severity based upon the number of customers affected by each power failure event, using data analytics for recovery priorities, using granular and large-scale failure data from the distribution grid comprising developing a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to the severity of power failure events since it is known that recovery scaling law can be generated (View Ji ¶ 66, 87, 88). Such modification would have allowed power failures to be prioritized for recovery using a recovery scaling law.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed July 22, 2026, with respect to Claims 1, 6, 16, 17 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of Claims 1, 6, 16, 17 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for Claim 18.
Applicant has amended Claim 18 to include “wherein the regulatory decisions comprise approving grid enhancements or adoption of additional distributed energy resources based upon the data driven recovery scaling law”.
Examiner believes this amendment includes insignificant solution activity because regulatory decisions made based on a recovery scaling law can be performed in the mind. No implementation of the grid enhancement has been recited Claim 18.
Please note: No argument was made, on record, regarding the 103 rejection of Claims 16 and 17.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Crawford et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2007/0174663); teaches having analyzed the descriptive metadata to determine that Battery H is the lowest-level potentially failing device in the hierarchy, begins to take action to resolve the error condition.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights