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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendment overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection in response to applicant’s claims amendment currently presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
1. (Currently amended) A partial discharge determination apparatus that determines partial discharge occurring in a power transmission facility, the partial discharge determination apparatus comprising:
a central processing unit (CPU) configured to:
acquire measurement data representing a charge amount and a phase of each partial discharge occurring in the power transmission facility;
remove or reduce noise included in the measurement data based on statistical information;
generate ᵠ-q-n data representing a charge amount, a phase, and the number of pulses of each of the partial discharge and the noise included in the measurement data from the measurement data from which the noise has been removed or reduced;
generate a learning model by performing machine learning using the ᵠ-q-n data of the partial discharge and the noise; and
determine whether at least the partial discharge has occurred by using the learning model based on the generated ᵠ-q-n data.
Analysis Steps for claim 1:
Step 1: Is claim 1 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 recites a partial discharge determination apparatus which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 1 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites “remove or reduce noise included in the measurement data based on statistical information” may be implemented by mathematical operations using statistical information, and this mental step a person can review the phase and charge data to decide what is noise and remove it from the data (41 in fig. 3); therefore, mathematical operations are abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “generate ᵠ-q-n data representing a charge amount, a phase, and the number of pulses of each of the partial discharge and the noise included in the measurement data from the measurement data from which the noise has been removed or reduced” which is mathematic and graphing (42, 43 in fig. 3) and may be generated from a computer program implemented using mathematical operations and/or human mental activities, and/or using statistical information; therefore, mathematical operations and/or human mental activities are abstract idea
Yes, claim 1 recites “generates a learning model by performing machine learning using the ᵠ-q-n data of the partial discharge and the noise” is generated from a computer program implemented using mathematical operations/algorithm, and/or human mental activities; therefore, mathematical operations/algorithm and/or human mental activities are abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “determine whether at least the partial discharge has occurred by using the learning model based on the generated ᵠ-q-n data” is determined from a computer program implemented using human mental activities which may be a result of the computer program, or in alternative a mental step of reviewing the data and mentally deciding there is a discharge; therefore, human mental activities are abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 1 recites additional element “A partial discharge determination apparatus that determines partial discharge occurring in a power transmission facility, the partial discharge determination apparatus comprising: a central processing unit (CPU” which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the partial discharge determination 6 is implement by a general-purpose computer device including a central processing unit (CPU) 30 and a memory 31, a storage device 32 (e.g. as described in fig. 3 of applicant’s drawing and [0031] of applicant’s specification with receipt date 09/29/2023) and using the general-purpose computer device in a power transmission facility does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Step 2b): Does claim 1 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, using a general-purpose computer device including general components does not integrate such abstract ideas (the mathematical operations and/or human mental activities) into a practical application.
When considering claim 1 as a whole, it does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, claims 2-4 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. 101 analougoulsy as in claim 1, where claims 2-4 are implementations of mathematical operations and/or human mental activities though computer program; therefore, mathematical operations and/or human mental activities are abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5:
5. (Currently amended)
A partial discharge determination method executed in a partial discharge determination apparatus, which includes a central processing unit (CPU) that determines partial discharge occurring in a power transmission facility, the partial discharge determination method, executed by the CPU, comprising:
a first step of acquiring measurement data representing a charge amount and a phase of each partial discharge occurring in the power transmission facility;
a second step of removing or reducing noise included in the measurement data based on statistical information;
a third step of generating ᵠ-q-n data representing a charge amount, a phase, and the number of pulses of each of the partial discharge and the noise included in the measurement data from the measurement data from which the noise has been removed or reduced; and
a fourth step of determining whether or not at least the partial discharge has occurred by using a learning model generated by performing machine learning using the ᵠ-q-n data of the partial discharge and the noise based on the ᵠ-q-n data.
Analysis Steps for claim 5:
Step 1: Is claim 5 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 5 recites a partial discharge determination method which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 5 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 5 recites “a second step of removing or reducing noise included in the measurement data based on statistical information” may be performed by mathematical operations using statistical information, and this mental step a person can review the phase and charge data to decide what is noise and remove it from the data (41 in fig. 3); therefore, mathematical operations are abstract idea.
Yes, claim 5 recites “a third step of generating ᵠ-q-n data representing a charge amount, a phase, and the number of pulses of each of the partial discharge and the noise included in the measurement data from the measurement data from which the noise has been removed or reduced” which is mathematic and graphing (42, 43 in fig. 3) and may be performed by mathematical operations and/or human mental activities, and/or using statistical information; therefore, mathematical operations and/or human mental activities are abstract idea
Yes, claim 5 recites “a fourth step of determining whether or not at least the partial discharge has occurred by using a learning model generated by performing machine learning using the ᵠ-q-n data of the partial discharge and the noise based on the ᵠ-q-n data”, where “a learning model generated by performing machine learning using the ᵠ-q-n data of the partial discharge and the noise based on the ᵠ-q-n data” is generated from a computer program implemented using mathematical operations/algorithm and/or human mental activities; therefore, mathematical operations/algorithm and/or human mental activities are abstract idea;
therefore; “a fourth step of determining whether or not at least the partial discharge has occurred by using a learning model generated by performing machine learning using the ᵠ-q-n data of the partial discharge and the noise based on the ᵠ-q-n data” is determined from the computer program implemented using mathematical operations and/or human mental activities; therefore, mathematical operations and/or human mental activities are abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 5 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 5 recites additional element “a partial discharge determination apparatus, which includes a central processing unit (CPU) that determines partial discharge occurring in a power transmission facility” which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the partial discharge determination 6 is implement by a general-purpose computer device including a central processing unit (CPU) 30 and a memory 31, a storage device 32 (e.g. described in fig. 3 of applicant’s drawing and [0031] of applicant’s specification with receipt date 09/29/2023) and using the general-purpose computer device in a power transmission facility does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Step 2b): Does claim 5 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, using a general-purpose computer device including general components does not integrate such abstract ideas (the mathematical operations and/or human mental activities) into a practical application.
When considering claim 5 as a whole, it does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6-8, claims 6-8 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. 101 analogously as in claim 5, where claims 6-8 may be performed by mathematical operations and/or human mental activities; therefore, mathematical operations and/or human mental activities are abstract idea.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cern (US 7,532,012) teaches “There is provided a method that includes (a) determining a characteristic of a fundamental spectral component of a spectrum of a power spectrum of noise on a power line, and (b) determining a condition of the power line based on the characteristic” (e.g. abstract, fig. 6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights