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 .
The instant application having application No. 18/394,225 filed on December 22, 2023, presents claims 1-20 for examination. The instant application has no priority data.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/9/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para [0015], line 6, second “electric power lines” is redundant.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 17, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 17,
“ instructing, via a computing device, an intelligent electronic device (IED) of a power delivery system to pause normal operation and apply a firmware update;
determining, via the computing device, validation of the firmware update based on the simulated digital measurements.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computing device. That is, other than reciting “via a computing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “via a computing device“, “instructing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually instructing the device to pause as defined in the claim element. Similarly, the user can manually determine validation of the firmware update as defined in the claim element. the device to pause as defined in the claim element. 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. Thus the claim limitations falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“providing, via the computing device, simulated digitized analog power delivery system samples to the intelligent electronic device (IED);
receiving, via the computing device, simulated digital measurements indicative of intelligent electronic device (IED) behavior in response to the simulated digitized analog power delivery system samples;” and
“a computing device”
Wherein “providing …”, and “receiving …” are insignificant extra-solution activity such as transmitting and gathering data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. And the “a computing device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a computing device”, that is mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, is not an inventive concept. The “providing …”, and “receiving …”, are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data transmitting and gathering which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a system to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 17 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 17, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 17.
Claim 1 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 17, i.e. “an intelligent electronic device (IED) of an electric power delivery system” but the device and the system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device or a generic system) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 11, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (product) claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a computer-readable medium to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 17 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 17, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 17.
Claim 11 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 17, i.e. “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “data processing circuitry” but the medium and the circuitry are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the computing device is configured to determine validation of the firmware based on a comparison of the simulated digital measurements and expected digital measurements.” Further defines the “determine …” limitation of claim 1, and is the same mental process, i.e. the user can manually perform the comparison and make the determination as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 3, “wherein the computing device is configured to determine that the firmware is validated when the simulated digital measurements fall within a threshold of the expected digital measurements.” Further defines the “determine …” limitation of claim 2, and is the same mental process, i.e. the user can manually determine if the simulated digital measurements fall within a threshold of the expected digital measurements as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 4, “wherein the computing device is configured to send the firmware update to the intelligent electronic device (IED) before transmitting the signal indicative of instructions to pause normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation and apply the firmware update.” The “send …”, and “transmitting …”, are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data transmitting and gathering which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
With respect to claim 5, “wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled to the intelligent electronic device (IED) via a switch.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 6, “wherein the switch is configured to transfer authentic digitized analog samples of the electric power delivery system during normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation and not to transfer the authentic digitized analog samples of the electric power delivery system when normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation is paused.” The “transfer …” process is insignificant extra-solution activities such as data transmitting which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The switch is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 7, “comprising the intelligent electronic device (IED), wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) is configured to:
receive the signal comprising the simulated digitized analog power delivery system samples;
generate the simulated digital measurements based on the simulated digitized analog power delivery system samples; and
transmit the signal indicative of the simulated digital measurements to the computing device.” The “receive… ” and “transmit …” processes are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering and transmitting which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The “generate … ” process is mental process, e.g. the user can manually generate the simulated digital measurements as defined in the claim. The intelligent electronic device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 8, “wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) is configured to download the firmware update from a source other than the computing device.” The “download… ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The computing device and the intelligent electronic device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 9, “wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) is configured to pause normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation in response to the instructions to pause normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation, wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) is configured to control one or more components of the electric power delivery system during normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation and not to control the one or more components of the electric power delivery system when normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation is paused.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 10, “wherein:
the computing device comprises a remote computing device;
the system comprises a local computing device in communication with the intelligent electronic device (IED); and
the remote computing device is configured to communicatively couple, via a wide area network, to the local computing device in communication with the intelligent electronic device (IED) to enable the remote computing device to communicatively couple to the intelligent electronic device (IED).” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 12, “wherein the simulated digital measurements comprise a log of event reports generated in response to the simulated digitized analog power delivery system samples.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 13, “comprising instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the data processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
providing the firmware update to the intelligent electronic device (IED).” The “providing… ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The data processing circuitry and the intelligent electronic device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 14, “comprising instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the data processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
issuing one or more commands to the intelligent electronic device (IED) to download the firmware update.” The “issuing… commands” and “download …” are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering and transmitting which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The data processing circuitry and the intelligent electronic device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 15, “comprising instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the data processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
connecting, via a wide area network, to a local computing system; and
prompting the local computing system to perform the operations recited in claim 11.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 16, “comprising instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the data processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
connecting, via a wide area network, to a local computing system; and
performing the operations recited in claim 11 using the local computing system as an edge device.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 18, “wherein the firmware update comprises security configuration changes, control changes, measurement changes, or any combination thereof.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 19, “wherein the method is performed by a testing device within a local area network of the intelligent electronic device (IED), and wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) comprises an intelligent merging unit.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 20, “comprising:
receiving a test file from a computing device separated from the intelligent merging unit, wherein the test file comprises instructions readable by the testing device; and
generating the simulated digitized analog power delivery system samples based on the instructions.” The “receiving… ” process is an insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The “generating … ” process is mental process, e.g. the user can manually generate the simulated samples as defined in the claim. The computing device, the intelligent merging unit, and the testing device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computing device) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, KIM et al., US 20190258472 A1 teaches method and apparatus for multimodal operation of near field communications circuitry. De Los Reyes et al. US 9015837 B1 teaches systems and methods for verifying an update to data of an electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197