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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: February 17, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-22 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-14 and 17 have been amended. Claims 4 and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 8, with respect to the objection of claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant has argued that the amended claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Abstract Idea rejections (see REMARKS pages 9-14). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The claims, as currently presented, have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11 and 17 use a computer and/or a processor to perform the functions as claimed, which may be done mentally in the human mind (or with the aid of pen and paper). The additional elements of a electrical meter, a network interface, a premises or location, and a memory system fail to sufficiently integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see the Abstract Idea analysis in the rejection below).
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 16-18, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 11 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-22 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 1 recites the limitation “the first electrical meter has likely been bypassed” in lines 12-13. The limitation “likely” is indefinite, because the limitation does not indicate any metes and bounds for what is considered for the meter to be bypassed or not and a review of the specification shows that there is no definition for the limitation “likely” found.
Claims 2, 7-8, 10 and 21, dependent claims of claim 1, have been found to contain the limitation “likely” as well.
Claims 2-3, 5-10 and 21 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “that the first electrical meter is potentially bypassed” in line 1 15. The limitation “potentially” is indefinite, because the limitation does not indicate any metes and bounds for what is considered for the meter to be bypassed or not and a review of the specification shows that there is no definition for the limitation “potentially” found.
Claims 14-16, dependent claims of claim 11, have been found to contain the limitation “potentially” as well.
Claims 13-16 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 11.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “determining that the first electrical meter is likely bypassed” in line 16. The limitation “likely” is indefinite, because the limitation does not indicate any metes and bounds for what is considered for the meter to be bypassed or not and a review of the specification shows that there is no definition for the limitation “likely” found.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 17.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
814
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
902
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 1 recite(s) a method (a process).
Independent claim 11 recite(s) one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (a machine).
Independent claim 17 recite(s) an apparatus (a machine).
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitations of claim 1 of performing the three steps of determining; the limitations of claim 11 of performing the steps of computing and in response to determining; and the limitations of claim 17 of receiving, counting, calculating, and determining, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a computer” for claim 1; reciting “one or more processors” and “a computer” for claim 11; and reciting “one or more processors” with a memory system for claim 17; nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a computer”, “one or more processors”, and memory system language; the “determining” and “in response to determining” steps of claims 1 and 11 and the “receiving”, “counting”, “calculating” and “determining” steps of claim 17, encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to decide that the meter has likely/potentially been bypassed based on collected data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 17 recite an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 11 and 17 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a first electrical meter, a network interface and a premises to measure an amount of electricity delivered to the premises and a computer to perform the steps of claim 1. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a first electrical service location, a first electrical meter, one or more processors and a computer to perform the steps of claim 11. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of a network interface, a first electrical meter, a premises and one or more processors with a memory system to perform the steps of claim 17. The first electrical meter, the network interface and premises of claim 1; the first electrical service location and the first electrical meter of claim 11; and the network interface, the first electrical meter and the premises of claim 17 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of counting load switching events and measuring the amount of electricity consumption/delivered), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer, one or more processors and memory system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/computer performing generic computer functions of the two obtain steps and computing step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 11 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A: Prong 2), claims 1, 11 and 17 do contain additional elements. The additional elements of a first electrical meter, a network interface, and a premises of claim 1; a first electrical service location and a first electrical meter of claim 11; and a network interface, a first electrical meter, and a premises of claim 17 provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic computer components or processes used in a well-understood, routing, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Claims 1, 11 and 17 further recites the additional elements of a computer, one or more processors, and/or a memory system to perform the steps/functions as claimed, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further adds an additional in response step. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further adds to the first obtaining step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, this claim has additional elements of the computer being disposed on a cellular tower in a same geographic region as the meter. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see claim 1 analysis for the two obtaining steps in Step 2A: Prongs 1, 2 and Step 2B above, a similar analysis is used for this claim).
Regarding claim 6, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 8. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 11. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 11 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 11. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 11 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 11. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 11 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 11. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 11 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 17. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 17 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, this claim has additional elements of the first electrical meter and the other electrical meters being located in a same geographic region. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see claim 17 analyses in Step 2A: Prongs 1, 2 and Step 2B above, a similar analysis is used for this claim).
Regarding claim 20, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 17. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 17 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 21, this claim further adds to the steps of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 22, this claim has additional elements of the apparatus being disposed on a cellular tower in a same geographic region as the first electrical meter. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see claim 1 analysis for the two obtaining steps in Step 2A: Prongs 1, 2 and Step 2B above, a similar analysis is used for this claim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharp et al. discloses “System and method for detecting theft of electricity using meter data disaggregation” (see US2019/0101576)
May discloses “Self-contained electrical meter arrangement with isolated electrical meter power supply” (see US2015/0285844)
Trieste, Jr. discloses “System for measuring a parameter with an electrical meter” (see US2020/0182918)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858