DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on July 7, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 16, 17, 19, and 20, “The storage medium: (line 1) should be – The non-transitory computer storage medium --. 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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 8, and 10 recite an abstract idea of “performing clustering of discharge types” (mental process), “establishing, based on a clustering result of each discharge type, a regression model between sensor response amplitude and apparent discharge energy during a discharge development process” (mathematical concept), “calculating, based on the regression model, an accumulated value of apparent discharge energy of current partial discharge of the electrical equipment, wherein the accumulated value is used as an index of risk assessment to assess an insulation state of the electrical equipment” (mathematical concept), “calculating the accumulated value of the apparent discharge energy of the current partial discharge of the electrical equipment based on the regression model and using the accumulated value as the index of risk assessment to assess the insulation state of the electrical equipment” (mathematical concept), “finding a predicted value of apparent discharge energy corresponding to a current discharge pulse point of the electrical equipment in the regression mode” (mathematical concept), “accumulating predicted values of the apparent discharge energy and time during a monitoring and early warning process to determine an insulation risk level” (mathematical concept), “determining that the electrical equipment has no discharge” (mathematical concept, evaluation, mental process), “determining that a slight partial discharge occurs in the electrical equipment” (mathematical concept, evaluation, mental process), “determining that a serious discharge occurs in the electrical equipment” (mathematical concept, evaluation, mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor, claims 8, 10) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). Measuring partial discharge data of electrical equipment using a plurality of types of sensors is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Controlling a monitoring system to issue an insulation state warning based on the insulation risk level is directed to an insignificant post solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The determined risk level is merely outputted as a warning. Further, in claim 8, the warning is not outputted. Rather, the processor is merely “configured” to control a monitoring system to issue an insulation state warning based on the insulation risk level.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)). Measuring partial discharge data of electrical equipment using a plurality of types of sensors is well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Outputting a warning is also a well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 15, 16, and 20 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method and system for risk assessment of an insulation state of electrical equipment comprising finding a predicted value of apparent discharge energy corresponding to a current discharge pulse point of the electrical equipment in the regression model; accumulating predicted values of the apparent discharge energy and time during a monitoring and early warning process to determine an insulation risk level (claims 1, 8, 10) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
. Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “the measuring step is significant. The measuring step uses a plurality of types of sensors to measure physical partial discharge data of electrical equipment. This is not generic data collection. Rather, the measuring step is particular to the claimed invention: the measuring step uses specific, multiple types of sensors to acquire data on specific physical phenomena (for example, light emission) of electrical equipment.”
Examiner’s position is that there is/are nothing particular about the plurality of types of sensors. Thus, the sensors are considered to be generic sensors. The measuring step is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity because it is for mere data gathering for all use of the judicial exception. For example, the measured partial discharge data is used by the establishing step to establish a regression model (mathematical concept).
Applicants further argue the measuring step is tightly integrated with the subsequent clustering, regression modeling, and insulation risk level determination steps. Together, these steps solve the specific technical problem identified in the specification: that the degree of degradation of the insulation cannot be inferred from the amplitude alone (see paragraphs [00024] of the application as originally filed).
Examiner’s position is that the technical problem is disclosed in paragraph 0024 of the specification. However, the paragraph does not disclose the technical solution to solve the technical problem, where the technical solution includes the measuring step being tightly integrated with the subsequent clustering, regression modeling, and insulation risk level determination.
Applicants further argue “[b]y using multiple sensor types and integrating the measured data with subsequent processing, the claimed invention avoids misjudgment caused by relying on a single detection amplitude. Thus, the measuring step imposes meaningful limits on amended claim 1 and is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention.”
Examiner’s position is that by using multiple sensor types and integrating the measured data with subsequent processing, this process does not appear to solve the specific technical problem identified in the specification: that the degree of degradation of the insulation cannot be inferred from the amplitude alone (paragraph 00024).
Applicants further argue “the measuring step does not constitute "necessary data gathering" under MPEP § 2106.05(g)(3). According to MPEP, "necessary data gathering" refers to data gathering that is required for all uses of the recited judicial exception. In amended claim 1 of the present application, the measuring step recited in amended claim 1 specifically recites the use of multiple types of sensors to measure physical partial discharge data of in-service electrical equipment in real time. This particular multi-sensor measurement step is not required for all uses of the underlying concept, for example, the concept could be applied to existing historical discharge data without requiring real-time multi-sensor measurement. Therefore, the measuring step does not constitute "necessary data gathering" under MPEP § 2106.05(g)(3).”
Examiner’s position is that the measuring step is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity because it is for mere data gathering for all use of the judicial exception. For example, the measured partial discharge data is used by the establishing step (for all of its use) to establish a regression model (mathematical concept).
Applicants further argue “amended claim 1 now recites determining an insulation risk level by comparing an accumulated value against predefined thresholds α and ß, corresponding to three distinct insulation states: no discharge (Risk_level < α), slight partial discharge (α ≤ Risk_level ≤ ß), and serious discharge (Risk_level > ß). These thresholds are not arbitrary-α is set according to 120% of the risk index under background noise of the operation site, and ß is set according to the risk index at the maximum temperature allowed under the rated operation state of the electrical equipment. This is a domain-specific decision rule for high-voltage electrical equipment, not a generic mathematical operation.”
Examiner’s position is that comparing an accumulated value against predefined thresholds involves a subtraction step, which is a mathematical operation. Further, the step involves an evaluation (data comparison) and can be performed as a mental process.
Applicants further argue “the accumulation and risk determination steps are functionally integrated with the entire claimed process. They rely entirely on the preceding steps of multi-sensor measurement, discharge type clustering, and regression model establishment. Without the specific multi-sensor measurement and tailored regression model, the risk level determination cannot be performed. Thus, these steps are not nominal or tangential additions, and they are essential components of the claimed technical solution.”
Examiner’s position is that the risk determination steps are not used/applied in a meaningful way. For example, the determined risks are merely outputted as a warning. There are no meaningful steps/solutions in response to the warnings to mitigate the risks. Thus, the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106,05(e)).
Applicants further argue “the accumulation and risk determination steps directly address the technical problem in the prior art: that the degree of degradation of the insulation cannot be inferred from the amplitude alone, which causes great difficulty in assessing the insulation state of the electrical equipment. With amended claim 1, the present application can accurately characterize the severity of a partial discharge and provide a reliable solution for the insulation state early warning of the online monitoring system.”
As discussed above, paragraph 0024 of the specification identifies the technical problem, i.e., “the degree of degradation of the insulation cannot be inferred from the amplitude alone”. However, the paragraph does not explain that a technical solution of the accumulation and risk determination steps directly addresses the technical problem. The accumulation and risk determination steps seem to merely determine a technical problem (determined risks, early warning). However, meaningful steps/solutions in response to the determined risks/early warning are missing from the claims.
Applicants further argue “amended claim 1 further recites: "in response to determining that the slight partial discharge or the serious discharge occurs in the electrical equipment, controlling a monitoring system to issue an insulation state warning based on the insulation risk level." The feature "in response to determining that the slight partial discharge or the serious discharge occurs in the electrical equipment, controlling a monitoring system to issue an insulation state warning based on the insulation risk level", in combination with the other limitations of amended claim 1, explicitly controls a real-world physical system (a monitoring system) to issue an insulation state warning. This not only facilitates an understanding of the insulation state of the equipment but also detects many problems concerning manufacturing and installation in time and determines the cause and severity of the insulation faults. Thus, the warning control feature further ensures that amended claim 1 as a whole is directed to a practical application of the judicial exception.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims merely output a warning of the determined risks. However, meaningful steps/solutions in response to the determined risks are missing from the claims. Further, claim 8 does not even output a warning of the determined risks. Instead, claim 8 recites that a processor is merely “configured” to output the warning. As a whole, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Applicants further argue “amended claim 1 includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention as set forth in amended claim 1 solves the specific technical problem in the prior art: that the degree of degradation of the insulation cannot be inferred from the amplitude alone, which causes great difficulty in assessing the insulation state of the electrical equipment. With amended claim 1, the claimed invention can accurately characterize the severity of a partial discharge and provide a reliable solution for the insulation state early warning of the online monitoring system. Therefore, amended claim 1 includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Examiner’s position is that the technical problem is identified in paragraph 0024 of the specification. A technical solution to the technical problem is not explained in the paragraph. Further, providing a reliable solution for the insulation state early warning of the online monitoring system is missing from the claims. The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 October 5, 2026
