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 .
This office action is a response to an RCE with amendment/arguments filed on 2/25/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 11/25/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10 and 12-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 15 is/are independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 2/25/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 11-13 in “Remarks” that the claims are not rejectable under 35 U.S.C. 101 as outlined in a prior rejection.
Examiner respectfully notes that the Applicant has amended claims since the office actions in which the rejection was made, and the prior office action was an allowance in which Examiner stated that Applicant’s amendments have overcome prior rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 101. The current amendments still recite the claims in a manner in which it is not deemed that a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is applicable.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonderegger (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0241482) (hereinafter “Sonderegger”) in view of Arya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0221265) (hereinafter “Arya”).
Regarding claim 1 and corresponding claims 9 and 15, Sonderegger teaches a method, comprising: obtaining a meter time-series of voltages or a meter time-series of voltage-changes of a meter by performing voltage measurements over time; (Para. 30 - - metrology unit measures voltage over time; Para. 32 - - time-series of voltage changes measured)
assigning…within a threshold distance of the meter; (Para. 26 - - particular meter is associated to particular transformer; Claim 2 - - threshold distance of meter is determined)
determining correlation values of the meter with respect to individual transformers within the threshold distance of the meter, (Para. 20-21 - - correlation is determined with respect to meters connected to an individual transformer; Claim 2 - - threshold distance of meter is determined)
wherein the correlation values are based at least in part on the meter time-series of voltages or the meter time-series of voltage-changes of the meter and the transformer time-series of voltages or the transformer time-series of voltage-changes of respective transformers; (Para. 20-21 - - correlation is determined with respect to meters connected to an individual transformer, where correlation values are based on time-series of voltage-changes of meters with respect to individual transformers)
associating the meter to a particular transformer based at least in part on the correlation values; (Para. 26 - - particular meter is associated to particular transformer; Para. 36 - - association is based on correlation values)
and updating a topology associating meters and transformers based at least in part on the associating of the meter. (Para. 38 - - topological information is updated; Fig. 4 - - topology data is based on correlation value with respect to meters and particular transformers)
But Sonderegger does not explicitly teach assigning a transformer time-series of voltages or a transformer time-series of voltage-changes to respective transformers
However, Arya teaches assigning a transformer time-series of voltages or a transformer time-series of voltage-changes to respective transformers (Para. 38 - - voltage of transformer is monitored, i.e. over time)
Sonderegger and Arya are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain relationship between meters and transformers and determining topology.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Sonderegger, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Arya.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to employ automatic and less expensive methodology to determine phases in an electrical network consisting of meters and transformers, as suggested by Arya (Para. 21-22).
Regarding claim 2, and corresponding claims 10 and 16, Sonderegger teaches wherein determining the correlation values comprises: determining Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) values. (Para. 47 - - Pearson correlation coefficient is determined)
Regarding claim 4, Sonderegger teaches calculating voltage-correlation confidence rating (VCCR) values for the meter with respect to transformers within the threshold distance from that meter; (Para. 57 - - confidence limit, i.e. VCCR, is determined based on voltage correlation for meters with respect to transformer; Claim 2 - - threshold distance of meter is determined)
Arya teaches sending the VCCR values of the meter associated with the transformer to a softmax function to set a sum of the VCCR values to 100%; and utilizing the VCCR values when associating the meter to the particular transformer or another transformer. (Para. 93, 95 - - confidence, i.e. VCCR, is up to almost 100%, where VCCR is utilized for finding the solution, i.e. associating meter with transformer as taught by Sonderegger)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to employ automatic and less expensive methodology to determine phases in an electrical network consisting of meters and transformers, as suggested by Arya (Para. 21-22).
Regarding claim 5 and corresponding claims 14 and 17, Arya teaches iterating at least portions of the method until a stable connectivity model is achieved; and modifying the topology associating meters and transformers using the stable connectivity model. (Para. 66, 98 - - model is utilized, where modeling includes repetition, i.e. iterating, until stable connectivity is achieved, where Sonderegger has already taught updating topology based on updated information)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to employ automatic and less expensive methodology to determine phases in an electrical network consisting of meters and transformers, as suggested by Arya (Para. 21-22).
claim 6, Sonderegger teaches wherein associating the meter to the transformer is based at least in part on voltage-correlation confidence rating (VCCR) values, (Para. 57 - - confidence limit, i.e. VCCR, is determined based on voltage correlation for meters with respect to transformer; Para. 26 - - particular meter is associated to particular transformer; Para. 36 - - association is based on correlation values)
wherein the VCCR values are calculated by actions comprising: calculating VCCR as a function of a PCCref value and a PCC value, wherein the PCCref value is a reference PCC value for the meter, and wherein the PCC value is the PCC value of a transformer within the threshold distance of the meter. (Fig. 7-11 - - confidence rating, i.e. affinity, is calculated based on PCC, i.e. Pearson correlation values, where the affinity is within a distance of the meter/transformer)
claim 7, Sonderegger teaches wherein associating the meter to the transformer is additionally based on actions comprising: using address information to determine a side of a street of a meter; wherein associating the meter to the transformer is based at least in part on the side of the street of the meter. (Para. 50 - - location, i.e. address, information is entered, where data may be for multi-unit building, i.e. side of the street of the meter)
claim 8 and corresponding claims 12 and 18, Sonderegger teaches wherein associating the meter to the transformer is additionally based on actions comprising: determining respective distance confidence ratings for the meter and the transformers within the threshold distance of the meter, wherein the distance confidence ratings are based at least in part on distances between the meter and the transformers within the threshold distance of the meter; (Para. 20-21 - - correlation is determined with respect to meters connected to an individual transformer; Claim 2 - - threshold distance of meter is determined)
wherein associating the meter to the transformer is based at least in part on a distance confidence rating of the meter being associated with the transformer. (Para. 57 - - confidence limit, i.e. VCCR, is determined based on voltage correlation for meters with respect to transformer)
claim 13 and corresponding claim 20, Sonderegger teaches using address information to determine an address matching confidence rating (AMCR) between the meter and transformers less than the threshold distance from the meter; (Para. 50 - - location, i.e. address, information is entered; Fig. 7-11 - - meters and transformers are within, i.e. less than, threshold distance from each other; Para. 57 - - confidence limit, i.e. AMCR, is used)
wherein associating the meter to the transformer is based at least in part on an AMCR value of that meter. (Para. 26 - - particular meter is associated to particular transformer; Para. 36 - - association is based on correlation values; Para. 57 - - confidence limit, i.e. AMCR, is used)
claim 19, Sonderegger teaches wherein assigning the meter time-series of voltages or the meter time-series of voltage-changes is based at least in part on actions comprising: using a statistical measure having a central tendency to operate on the meter time- series of voltages or the meter time-series of voltage-changes indicated to be connected to the transformer by a record. (Para. 21, 36, 64 - - statistical tools/algorithms are used to correlate between meter readings and connected transformer readings)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights