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 .
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite “provide one or more element icons that is engageable to be added to a power system structure representation, wherein the one or more element icons are each a representative of a physical element that can be used in the power system structure; receive an indication of a first element icon of the one or more element icons to be used in the power system structure; assign the first element icon to one of a plurality of element cells of the power system structure representation; and determine a cell action configured to indicate a relationship between the cell in which the first element icon is assigned and at least one other of the plurality of elements cells of the power system structure”.
Since the claims recite providing icons that can be used to represent physical components and assigning the icons to a cell for relationship determination, the limitations above are processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas—concepts performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, see MPEP 210.604(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated in to a practical application because the additional elements of “at least one non-transitory storage device” (claim 1), “at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to” (claim 1), “a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodies thereon, the computer-readable program code portions comprising” (claim 11); “an executable portion configured to” (claim 11); and “computer-implemented” (claim 21) are recited at a high-level of generality. Additionally, additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a toll to practice the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements are still mere instructions to implement the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as a whole describe how to apply the concept of generating a power system structure representation using “at least one non-transitory storage device” (claim 1), “at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to” (claim 1), “a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodies thereon, the computer-readable program code portions comprising” (claim 11); “an executable portion configured to” (claim 11); and “computer-implemented” (claim 21), which are generic computer components, to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, which do nor provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 recite additional details that further narrow the previously recited abstract idea. There are no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application; nor are there additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 17-19, 21-24, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McAravey et al (US 2017/00997755).
As per claims 1, 11, and 21, McAravey et al discloses a system for dynamically generating a power system structure representation, the system comprising:
at least one non-transitory storage device (0002); and
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device (0002) is configured to:
provide one or more element icons that is engageable to be added to a power system structure representation, wherein the one or more element icons are each a representative of a physical element that can be used in the power system structure (0014; 0022; 0023; graphical representations of candidate components 302 are presented in a menu for selection by a user);
receive an indication of a first element icon of the one or more element icons to be used in the power system structure (0022; in order to add a candidate graphical representation to a model or representation 304 of the electrical power system, a user may select and/or drag a selected candidate graphical representation to a region 306 of the user interface in which the electrical power system model is displayed, and drop the candidate graphical representation into place in the model);
assign the first element icon to one of a plurality of element cells of the power system structure representation (0028: Each connected line of components (e.g., originating from a common bus) may be represented by a row of cells in the user interface. For example, as shown in FIG. 5A and continued in FIG. 5B, the first row of cells 502 may include cells for the transformer, cable (conductor), panel, cable (conductor), and load illustrated in the graphical input/output mode shown in FIG. 3. The second row of cells illustrate prompts to enter information about a connected line of components. For example, a component may be entered (e.g., text input via a hardware or software keyboard, handwritten via a touch pad, and/or voice recorded via a microphone) into a first cell of the row. One or more parameters and/or device settings may be added by selecting the parameter/setting and/or parameter/setting value from a drop-down men); and
determine a cell action configured to indicate a relationship between the cell in which the first element icon is assigned and at least one other of the plurality of elements cells of the power system structure (0002; 0022; The user further may specify one or more connectivities of the component by selecting a connector from the list of candidate graphical representations and placing the connector in between the component representation and a connected component or bus representation).
As per claims 2, 12, and 22, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 1. McAravey et al further discloses wherein the cell action is a connection type between the selected element icon with a second element icon assigned to another cell of the plurality of element cells, wherein the connection type indicates how the physical elements associated with the first element icon and the second element icons are to be connected in the power system structure (0022).
As per claims 3, 13, and 23. McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 1. McAravey et al further discloses wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to store an attribute table for each of the one or more element icons, wherein each attribute table comprises an attribute field and an attribute value, wherein the attribute field is a description of the physical element associated with the given element icon and the attribute value is a value relating to said attribute field (0023; 0028).
As per claims 4, 14, and 24, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 3. McAravey et al further discloses wherein the cell action is determined based on at least one of the attribute table of the first element icon or the attribute table of a second element icon assigned to another cell of the plurality of element cells (0028).
As per claims 7, 17, and 27, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 1. McAravey et al further discloses wherein each of the physical elements are a load, a generator, a storage device, or a power conversion device (0052).
As per claims 8, 18, and 28, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 1. McAravey et al further discloses wherein the power system structure representation is a schematic diagram (0002).
As per claims 9, 19, and 29, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 1. McAravey et al further discloses wherein the power system structure representation allows for dynamic changes comprising moving one of the element icons to another cell, wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to update the cell action for the moved element icon (0033: 0055).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6, 15-16, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAravey et al (US 2017/00997755) in view of Weingaertner et al (US 2008/0166604).
As per claims 5, 15, and 25, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 1. McAravey et al does not disclose, however Weingaertner et al discloses wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to determine at least one power system structure value indicating the operational efficiency of the power system structure (0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to include determining a power structure value as in Weingaertner et al in the power system structure representation system of McAravey et al to improve efficiency , as suggested by Weingaertner et al (0026).
As per claims 6, 16, and 26, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 5. McAravey et al does not disclose, however Weingaertner et al discloses wherein the at least one power system structure value comprises at least one of a cost to build the power system structure, a cost to operate the power system structure, or a system load of the power system structure (0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to include the at least one power system structure value comprises a cost to operate the power system structure as in Weingaertner et al in the power system structure representation system of McAravey et al to improve efficiency , as suggested by Weingaertner et al (0026).
Claims 10, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAravey et al (US 2017/00997755) in view of Shah et al (US 2003/0231211).
As per claims 10, 20, and 30, McAravey et al discloses the system of Claim 1. McAravey et al does not disclose, however Shah et al discloses wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to provide a selectable icon with information relating to how to purchase a physical element relating to a given element icon (0028; 0037; The icons presented may then be selectable by the user for various operations, e.g., configuration of the resources associated with the icons, or, in an embodiment where the filtered icons represent proposed resources for the system, the icons may be selectable by the user to initiate a purchase/order of the resources from a vendor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to include providing a selectable icon with information relating to how to purchase a physical element as in Shah et al in the power system structure representation system of McAravey et al to facilitate acquiring proposed resources, as suggested by Shah et al (0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights