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 1-3, 5-10, 14-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 103. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under Alice 101.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-15, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 15 recite:
prioritizing recovery from power failures across a utility service from among different failure severity characterizations of the power failures
unsupervised learning of non-stationary data related to prior power failure events
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 ‘prioritizing’ limitation in # 1 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, “prioritizing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ranking data in a specific order on paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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 ‘unsupervised learning of non-stationary data related to prior power failure events’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “unsupervised learning of non-stationary data related to prior power failure events” 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 2 recites:
developing a recovery scaling law for service resilience based upon analyses of the non-stationary data related to the prior power failure events
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 ‘developing’ limitation in # 3 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, “developing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deriving and validating on paper using mathematical modeling and showing a direct relationship data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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).
Claim 3 recites:
the failure severity characterizations are discrete categories based, at least in part, upon a number of customers affected by each power failure
The ‘the failure severity characterizations are discrete categories based, at least in part, upon a number of customers affected by each power failure’ limitation in # 4 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 failure severity characterizations are discrete categories based, at least in part, upon a number of customers affected by each power failure” 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 4 recites:
at least a portion of power failures having a smaller failure severity characterization than power failures having a larger failure severity characterization are prioritized for recovery prior to recovery of one or more of the power failures having the larger failure severity characterizations
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 ‘prioritizing’ limitation in # 5 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, “prioritizing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ranking data in a specific order on paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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).
Claims 5 and 21 recite:
systematically studying prior recovery services under the prior failure events
developing a recovery scaling law through unsupervised learning of the large-scale data
improving the performance of resilient recovery services from power failures based upon the studying and developing
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 ‘studying’ limitation in # 6 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, “studying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating data.
The ‘developing’ limitation in # 7 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, “developing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deriving and validating on paper using mathematical modeling and showing a direct relationship data.
The ‘improving’ limitation in # 8 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, “improving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person suggesting a recovery operation on paper, using a visual representation or verbally.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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).
Claim 7 recites:
at least a portion of the power failures are induced by weather disruptions
The ‘at least a portion of the power failures are induced by weather disruptions’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “at least a portion of the power failures are induced by weather disruptions” 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 8 recites:
the large-scale data comprises non-stationary data
The ‘the large-scale data comprises non-stationary data’ limitation in # 10 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 large-scale data comprises non-stationary data” 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 9 recites:
one or more of the studied prior recovery services was based upon widely adopted prioritization policies favoring larger failure events
prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a larger number of customers losing power was favored over prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a smaller number of customers losing power
studying finds that under those widely adopted prioritization policies favoring the larger failures events, recovery exhibits a scaling property where a majority of the customers recovers in a small fraction of total downtime
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 ‘prioritizing’ limitation in # 12 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, “prioritizing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ranking data in a specific order on paper.
The ‘studying’ limitation in # 13 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, “studying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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 ‘one or more of the studied prior recovery services was based upon widely adopted prioritization policies favoring larger failure events’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “one or more of the studied prior recovery services was based upon widely adopted prioritization policies favoring larger failure events” 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 10 recites:
the majority of the customers is about 90% of the customers
The ‘the majority of the customers is about 90% of the customers’ limitation in # 14 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 majority of the customers is about 90% of the customers” 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 11 recites:
studying further finds that recovery degrades with the severity of the prior failure events
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 ‘studying’ limitation in # 15 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, “studying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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).
Claim 12 recites:
the larger failure events that cannot recover rapidly increase by 30% from lesser, moderate-to-extreme failure events
The ‘the larger failure events that cannot recover rapidly increase by 30% from lesser, moderate-to-extreme failure events’ limitation in # 16 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 larger failure events that cannot recover rapidly increase by 30% from lesser, moderate-to-extreme failure events” 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 13 recites:
prolonged smaller failure events dominate the entirety of the studied prior recovery services
The ‘prolonged smaller failure events dominate the entirety of the studied prior recovery services’ limitation in # 17 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “prolonged smaller failure events dominate the entirety of the studied prior recovery services” 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 14 recites:
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
developing a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to the severity of power failure events
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 ‘prioritizing’ limitation in # 18 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, “prioritizing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ranking data in a specific order on paper.
The ‘developing’ limitation in # 22 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, “developing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deriving and validating on paper using mathematical modeling and showing a direct relationship data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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 power failure events categorized by severity based upon the number of customers affected by each power failure event’ limitation in # 19 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 power failure events categorized by severity based upon the number of customers affected by each power failure event” 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)).
The ‘using data analytics for recovery priorities’ limitation in # 20 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “using data analytics for recovery priorities” 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)).
The ‘using granular and large-scale failure data from the distribution grid’ limitation in # 21 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “using granular and large-scale failure data from the distribution grid” 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 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
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 ‘a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to severity of power failure events’ limitation in # 24 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to severity of power failure events” 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 19 recites:
developing a recovery scaling law for service resilience based upon analyses of the non-stationary data related to the prior power failure events
the failure severity characterizations are discrete categories based, at least in part, upon a number of customers affected by each power failure
at least a portion of power failures having a smaller failure severity characterization than power failures having a larger failure severity characterization are prioritized for recovery prior to recovery of one or more of the power failures having the larger failure severity characterizations
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 ‘developing’ limitation in # 25 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, “developing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deriving and validating on paper using mathematical modeling and showing a direct relationship data.
The ‘prioritizing’ limitation in # 27 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, “prioritizing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ranking data in a specific order on paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
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 failure severity characterizations are discrete categories based, at least in part, upon a number of customers affected by each power failure’ limitation in # 26 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 failure severity characterizations are discrete categories based, at least in part, upon a number of customers affected by each power failure” 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 § 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.
Claim 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the large-scale data" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the performance" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the large-scale data" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the recovery" in Line 2 and Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the severity" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the number of customers" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the distribution grid" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the effectiveness" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the prioritization" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the number of customers" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the large-scale data" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063) in view of Anderson (US Patent Application 2013/0232094).
Claim 1, Ji teaches a method of prioritizing recovery from power failures across a utility service from among different failure severity characterizations of the power failures (View Ji ¶ 30, 50, 179; disruption recovered using priority; resilience metric reflects impact of weather induced failures).
Ji does not teach unsupervised learning of non-stationary data related to prior power failure events.
However, Anderson teaches unsupervised learning of non-stationary data related to prior power failure events (View Anderson ¶ 43; machine learning algorithm; power quality events; the process can handle diverse, noisy, sources that are historical (static), semi-real-time, or real-time and incorporates machine learning algorithms for prioritization (supervised ranking or MTBF)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ji with unsupervised learning of non-stationary data related to prior power failure events since it is known that a machine learning algorithm can learn power failure events (View Anderson ¶ 43). Such modification would have allowed power failures to be prioritized for recovery.
Claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Ji further teaches developing a recovery scaling law for service resilience based upon analyses of the non-stationary data related to the prior power failure events (View Ji ¶ 180; scaling law of recovery).
Claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Ji further teaches the failure severity characterizations are discrete categories based, at least in part, upon a number of customers affected by each power failure (View Ji ¶ 180; number of customers affected by disruption).
Claim 15, Ji teaches a method of basing smart grid infrastructure on the method of prioritizing of claim 1 (View Ji ¶ 100; smart grid).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US Patent Application 2007/0260918) in view of Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063).
Claim 5, Okada teaches a method basing resilient recovery services from large-scale data analytics on prior failure events (View Okada ¶ 93, 104, 105; status history information for power supply failure) comprising: systematically studying prior recovery services under the prior failure events (View Okada ¶ 111, 114; power supply failure analyzed).
Okada does not teach developing a recovery scaling law through unsupervised learning of the large-scale data; and improving the performance of resilient recovery services from power failures based upon the studying and developing.
However, Ji teaches developing a recovery scaling law through unsupervised learning of the large-scale data (View Ji ¶ 71, 148, 180; non-stationary learning; scaling law of recovery); and improving the performance of resilient recovery services from power failures based upon the studying and developing (View Ji ¶ 182; resilience metric determined, response team addressed situation or plans for repairs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Okada with developing a recovery scaling law through unsupervised learning of the large-scale data; and improving the performance of resilient recovery services from power failures based upon the studying and developing since it is known that recovery scaling law can be generated (View Ji ¶ 71, 148, 180, 182). Such modification would have allowed power failures to be prioritized for recovery using a recovery scaling law.
Claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. Ji further teaches at least a portion of the power failures are induced by weather disruptions (View Ji ¶ 2, 33, 66; severe weather disruptions; weather induced failure).
Claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. Ji further teaches the large-scale data comprises non-stationary data (View Ji ¶ 72; learn non-stationary behaviors of large-scale failures).
Claim 21, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. Ji further teaches basing smart grid infrastructure on the method of prioritizing (View Ji ¶ 100; smart grid).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US Patent Application 2007/0260918) in view of Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063) and further in view of Drees (US Patent Application 2012/0022700).
Claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. Ji does not teach improving comprises enhancing recovery of at least a portion of the power failures through distributed generation and storage.
However, Drees teaches improving comprises enhancing recovery of at least a portion of the power failures through distributed generation and storage (View Drees ¶ 68; distributed energy generation and energy storage banks).
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 improving comprises enhancing recovery of at least a portion of the power failures through distributed generation and storage since it is known that recovery can be improved (View Drees ¶ 68). Such modification would have allowed recovery to be improved through distributed generation and storage.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US Patent Application 2007/0260918) in view of Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063) in view of Pan (US Patent Application 2004/0158772) and further in view of Drees (US Patent Application 2012/0022700).
Claim 20, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. Ji further teaches wherein at least a portion of the failure events are induced by weather disruptions (View Ji ¶ 2, 33, 66; severe weather disruptions; weather induced failure); wherein the large-scale data comprises non-stationary data ((View Ji ¶ 72; learn non-stationary behaviors of large-scale failures); and wherein studying finds that under widely adopted prioritization policies favoring larger failures, recovery exhibits a scaling property where a majority of customers recovers in a small fraction of total downtime (View Ji ¶ 180; scaling law for customers).
Ji does not teach the prior failure events have different severities; wherein studying comprises studying prior recovery services under the different severities of failure impact; wherein improving comprises enhancing recovery of a portion of large failures through distributed generation and storage.
However, Pan teaches the prior failure events have different severities (View Pan ¶ 65; determining an impact on the power network of a failure of each power network component); wherein studying comprises studying prior recovery services under the different severities of failure impact (View Pan ¶ 65; impact assessment and statistical analysis on historical data).
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 prior failure events have different severities; wherein studying comprises studying prior recovery services under the different severities of failure impact since it is known that a failure impact can be determined (View Pan ¶ 65). Such modification would have allowed power events to have different severities.
Ji and Pan do not teach improving comprises enhancing recovery of a portion of large failures through distributed generation and storage.
However, Drees teaches improving comprises enhancing recovery of a portion of large failures through distributed generation and storage (View Drees ¶ 68; distributed energy generation and energy storage banks).
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 improving comprises enhancing recovery of a portion of large failures through distributed generation and storage since it is known that recovery can be improved (View Drees ¶ 68). Such modification would have allowed recovery to be improved through distributed generation and storage.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US Patent Application 2007/0260918) in view of Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063) and further in view of Lubkeman (US Patent Application 2005/0096856).
Claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. Ji further teaches wherein the studying finds that under those widely adopted prioritization policies favoring the larger failures events, recovery exhibits a scaling property where a majority of the customers recovers in a small fraction of total downtime (View Ji ¶ 180; scaling law for customers).
Okada and Ji do not teach one or more of the studied prior recovery services was based upon widely adopted prioritization policies favoring larger failure events, where prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a larger number of customers losing power was favored over prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a smaller number of customers losing power.
However, Lubkeman teaches one or more of the studied prior recovery services was based upon widely adopted prioritization policies favoring larger failure events, where prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a larger number of customers losing power was favored over prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a smaller number of customers losing power (View Lubkeman ¶ 144; prioritize restoration having higher number of customers).
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 one or more of the studied prior recovery services was based upon widely adopted prioritization policies favoring larger failure events, where prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a larger number of customers losing power was favored over prioritizing the recovery of power failures affecting a smaller number of customers losing power since it is known that recovery can be prioritized (View Lubkeman ¶ 144). Such modification would have allowed a larger number customers to be recovered.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US Patent Application 2007/0260918) in view of Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063) in view of Lubkeman (US Patent Application 2005/0096856) and further in view of Burkhart (US Patent Application 2014/0312893).
Claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 9. Ji does not teach the majority of the customers is about 90% of the customers.
However, Burkhart teaches the majority of the customers is about 90% of the customers (View Burkhart ¶ 3; power successfully restored to most customers).
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 majority of the customers is about 90% of the customers since it is known that most customers are restored (View Burkhart ¶ 3). Such modification would have allowed 90% of customers to be restored.
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 the effectiveness of enhancement procedures or investments to the 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US Patent Application 2022/0172004) in view of in view of Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063).
Claim 18, Das teaches a method of using a data-driven tool to make regulatory decisions (View Das ¶ 23; regulatory “right to explanation” provisions data driven automated decision making).
Das does not teach the data-driven tool comprising a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to severity of power failure events.
However, Ji teaches the data-driven tool comprising a data driven recovery scaling law that characterizes how recovery speed scales with respect to 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 Okada with developing a recovery scaling law through unsupervised learning of the large-scale data; and improving the performance of resilient recovery services from power failures based upon the studying and developing since it is known that recovery scaling law can be generated (View Ji ¶ 71, 148, 180, 182). Such modification would have allowed power failures to be prioritized for recovery using a recovery scaling law.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Ji (US Patent Application 2015/0331063).
Claim 14, Ji teaches a method of prioritizing the recovery of power failure events (View Ji ¶ 30, 50, 179; disruption recovered with priority; resilience metric reflects impact of weather induced failures), 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), comprising: 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); and 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).
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
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