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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtaining output voltages are routine data gathering. Comparing amplitudes, phases or frequencies are details of the abstract idea(s) of data gathering or mental comparison.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 2 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, selecting one item of several is a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because it is just selecting an item.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 3 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtaining output voltages are routine data gathering. What type of combiner does not affect the generating steps which are no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 4 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the type of signal measured is still routine data gathering.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 5 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtaining output voltages are routine data gathering. What type of converter does not affect the generating steps which are no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 6 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. Wired and wireless communications are notoriously well known methods of communication for computers and control systems.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 8 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim simply gives more detail to the mathematical comparison. It is still an abstract idea.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 9 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 is set in a format as means for performing steps. Claim 10 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtaining output voltages are routine data gathering.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 11 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, selecting one item of several is a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because it is just selecting an item.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtaining output voltages are routine data gathering. What type of combiner does not affect the generating steps which are no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. Comparing amplitudes, phases or frequencies are details of the abstract idea(s) of data gathering or mental comparison.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the type of signal measured is still routine data gathering.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 14 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtaining output voltages are routine data gathering. What type of converter does not affect the generating steps which are no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 15 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. Wired and wireless communications are notoriously well known methods of communication for computers and control systems.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 17 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions. Under step 2A, Prong 1, generating steps as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim simply gives more detail to the mathematical comparison. It is still an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims are directed to more than the abstract idea of a Mathematical relationship and/or Mental process because the instant invention requires using a controller, multiple converters receiving voltage signal and generating fault or incorrect information based on comparison. This is not found persuasive because the primary controller is generating first information after the output port voltage signal of the first and second converters meet a preset matching relationship. Such a comparison is still a simple comparison. Comparing two amplitudes is still either a mental step or math (i.e. is a>b?) The same can be said in a comparison of a difference of frequencies. (i.e. are they the same or different?) Regarding the generating fault or incorrect information based on comparison,
The applicant discusses how mental steps should be able to practically be performed in the human mind but does not allege or point out what steps can not be practically performed in the human mind. The applicant should note that collecting voltage signals is routine data gathering. Comparison of amplitudes, phases and frequencies can all be done in the human mind and/or with pen and paper.
The applicant argues that the invention is an improvement in the detection of faulty wiring between converters. The applicant does not indicate how or what the claim limitations are that taken in combination amounts to significantly more than simply performing the abstract idea (of identifying faulty wiring connection between converters) on a computer. The only support of this argument is that “the processing of large signal variation of multiple encoders connected to the grid and their output variations or relationships could not be performed in the mind”. Signal variation of multiple encoders connected to a grid and their output variations or relationships is not what is claimed. Comparing the phase, frequency or amplitude of two signals is claimed. Any of those can be performed in the mind or at least with pen and paper. Using a tool such as multimeter or oscilloscope to detect a voltage is routine data gathering.
The applicant also argues that the claimed invention is used in a practical application because the claims are directed to detecting faulty wiring. This is not found persuasive. The claims recite what the relationship determination indicates and is an intended use. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Conclusion
This is an RCE of applicant's earlier Application No 18/356406. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. The examine notes that the claims have been amended to fix “correction” to “connection”. This is just a typographical correction and the claims are not being interpreted differently. Additionally, such a typographical corrected would have been allowed entry earlier in prosecution. See Advisory action mailed December 12, 2025. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights