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 Arguments
112 Rejections
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
101 Rejections
Based on applicant’s filed amendments and arguments, the examiner is not persuaded. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
102 Rejections
Applicant argues Kann fails to teach performing a correlation between electrical measurements from two different meters, however, the examiner respectively disagrees.
As pointed out below in the rejection of claim 1, para. [0054] teaches:
In some examples, both the first and second time-stamped voltage values 500 and 502 may be received from meters or, in other examples, from transformers. Multiple correlations of multiple devices in a power distribution area may be determined and stored in the correlation database 310. Because each correlation indicates the configuration of a power line between devices, determining and storing all of the correlations of the devices in a power distribution area may determine the power line configuration for all of the devices in the power distribution area.
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Kann teaches embodiments that encompass the claimed invention, i.e. multiple devices, like first and second meters, and their respective data being used to determine correlations of the devices in a power distribution area. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
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, 3-8, 11 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas that fall into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts as;
obtaining non-electrical data from a first utility meter which is considered to be a mental concept related to the gathering of needed data to perform judgments using that data;
determining that the first utility meter is fed by a transformer in an electrical power distribution network based on a distance between the first utility meter and the transformer as determined from the non-electrical data which is considered to be a mere observation capable of being performed in the human mind, as person is capable of determining the distance of a transformed by observing the distance between the meter and transformer from non-electrical data;
obtaining first electrical measurements from the first utility meter at predetermined time intervals which is considered to be a mental concept related to the gathering of needed data to perform judgments using that data;
obtaining second electrical measurements from a second utility meter at the predetermined time intervals which is considered to be a mental concept related to the gathering of needed data to perform judgments based on the gathered data;
determining that the second utility meter is fed by the transformer including performing a time-based correlation between the first electrical measurements from the first meter and the second electrical measurements from the second meter within a predefined time window; and associating a load supplied through the second utility meter with the transformer in a computer model of the electrical power distribution network based on the determination that the second utility meter is fed by the transformer which is considered to be a mental concepts that encompasses an evaluation and judgement using the gathered measurements to make correlations in a predefined time window, where the window acts as a rule, to make an associations related to the second meter and the transformer in a computer model. Although the claim implies a computer environment, it’s clear that the computer is merely acting as a tool to perform the abstract idea without being improved or bettered; thereby, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the first and second utility meters, a transformer of electrical power distribution network, and a load are additional elements that merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the result or performance of the abstract ideas improve their respective operations. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the identified additional elements, alone or in combination, are affected by the performance or result of the abstract idea. The additional element generically links the abstract ideas to a field of use.
Claims 3 and 13 further define the abstract idea by further defining the determination step to include comparing image cues. Insofar as what is structurally recited defining the comparing step, the examiner considers such a comparison capable of being performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 14 further define the abstract idea by further defining the determination step to include comparing geospatial cues. Insofar as what is structurally recited defining the comparing step, the examiner considers such a comparison capable of being performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 15 further define determining the distance between the meters. The limitation is considered to further define the abstract ideas without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as determining the distance between the two is capable of being performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 6 and 16 further define the abstract ideas falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as performing time-based correlations within a predefined time window, ranking based on likelihood, and making associations of a second load based on the rankings is capable of being performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. Further, the set of utilities meters, merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected similarly to claims 1 and 11, as the claims encompasses the same mental concepts described above in the rejection of claims 1 and 11. Further, the additional elements of a third meter, second transformer, load, and their respective distances and measurements does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as these elements are not improved or impacted by the result of the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 18 further define the time intervals found in the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 19 further defines the first utility meter as being an AMI meter without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the AMI meter is neither improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites abstract ideas that fall into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts as;
obtaining non-electrical data from a first utility meter which is considered to be a mental concept related to the gathering of needed data to perform judgments using that data;
determining that the first utility meter is fed by a transformer in an electrical power distribution network based on a distance between the first utility meter and the transformer as determined from the non-electrical data which is considered to be a mere observation capable of being performed in the human mind, as person is capable of determining the distance of a transformed by observing the distance between the meter and transformer from non-electrical data;
obtaining first electrical measurements from the first utility meter at predetermined time intervals which is considered to be a mental concept related to the gathering of needed data to perform judgments using that data;
obtaining second electrical measurements from a second utility meter at the predetermined time intervals which is considered to be a mental concept related to the gathering of needed data to perform judgments based on the gathered data;
determining that the second utility meter is fed by the transformer including performing a time-based correlation between the first electrical measurements from the first meter and the second electrical measurements from the second meter within a predefined time window; and associating a load supplied through the second utility meter with the transformer in a computer model of the electrical power distribution network based on the determination that the second utility meter is fed by the transformer which is considered to be a mental concepts that encompasses an evaluation and judgement using the gathered measurements to make correlations in a predefined time window, where the window acts as a rule, to make an associations related to the second meter and the transformer in a computer model. Although the claim implies a computer environment, it’s clear that the computer is merely acting as a tool to perform the abstract idea without being improved or bettered; thereby, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the first and second utility meters, a transformer of electrical power distribution network, and a load are additional elements that merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the result or performance of the abstract ideas improve their respective operations. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because none of the identified additional elements, alone or in combination, are affected by the performance or result of the abstract idea. The additional element generically links the abstract ideas to a field of use.
Note: claim 20 is rejected similarly to claim 11, as none of the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium storage media, instructions or the computers are improved or bettered by either the performance or result of the abstract idea, thereby failing to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 21 and 22 further define the abstract ideas falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as calculating coefficients is considered to be a mathematical operation while determining if a threshold value is satisfied is an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts. Further, the claimed meters merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 23 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as determining that the second utility meter is fed by the transformer consists of performing the time based correlations between the measurements of the meters with the time window, as insofar as what is structurally recited, the identified limitations are capable of being performed in the human mind. The limitation is considered to further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application
Claim 24 recited obtaining data from the meter. The limitation is considered to further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11, 13-20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kann (2016/0109491).
With respect to claim 11, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 a system comprising one or more computers (200; [0030]) and one or more storage devices (i.e. 208; [0030]) storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers (200) to perform operations [0030] comprising: obtaining non-electrical data from a first utility meter (110; as Kann teaches in [0026] obtaining GPS data from the meters); determining (via a database 304 that stores location data) that the first utility meter (110) is fed by a transformer (102) in an electrical power distribution network (100) based on a distance between the first utility meter (110) and the transformer (102) as determined from the non-electrical data (as Kan teaches through a correlation process, a distance determination between a meter and a transformer is performed using the non-electrical positional data stored in the database 304; [0054]); obtaining first electrical measurements (i.e. voltage measurements) from the first utility meter (110) at predetermined time intervals (as Kann teaches in [0025] electrical measurements are taken at predetermined time intervals using the taught smart meters for that specific time); obtaining second electrical measurements from a second utility meter (120; Fig.1) at the predetermined time intervals (i.e. as the second utility meter collects data a specific time intervals related to when power is used and is timestamped similarly to meter 110; [0025]); determining (i.e. a correlation aid in determining what meter is being fed by what transformer; [0054]) that the second utility meter (120) is fed by the transformer (102) including performing a time-based correlation between the first electrical measurements from the first utility meter (i.e. using time stamped voltage measurements for the first meter 110) and the second electrical measurements from the second utility meter (voltage measurements taken from meter 120) within a predefined time window (i.e. defined by the timestamped data that overlaps being used as the window of time for the meters); and associating a load supplied through the second utility meter (120) with the transformer (102) in a computer model of the electrical power distribution network (as Kann teaches associating the meters and transformers in a computer generated map model of the power network that maps voltage/consumption data on a display with meter and transformer data; [0072]) based on the determination that the second utility meter (120) is fed by the transformer (102; as Kann teaches associating loads for each meter using time-stamped voltages, predetermined thresholds and location information to correlated one device to another; [0040]).
With respect to claim 1, Kann teaches a computer-implemented method (Fig. 11-12) and its steps are taught during the operation of the rejected system of claim 11.
With respect to claim 20, Kann teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (208) storing instructions [0030] that when executed by one or more computers (200) cause the one or more computers (200) to perform the recited operations during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 11.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the method/system wherein determining that the first utility meter (110) is fed by the transformer (102) in the electrical power distribution network (100) based on the distance between the first utility meter (110) and the transformer (102) as determined from the non-electrical data comprises comparing image cues (as Kann teaches correlations being made based on data that describes if two devices are connected by a power distribution cable or line; [0040]; the examiner considers the system recognizing wires to be visual data, thereby reading on “image cues” as the data is determined based on a visual representation of those devices and their respective structural configurations; insofar as how the system is defined to collect, receive or process “image cues”).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the method/system wherein determining that the first utility meter (110) is fed by the transformer (102) in the electrical power distribution network (100) based on the distance between the first utility meter (110) and the transformer (102) as determined from the non-electrical data comprises comparing geospatial cues (as Kann teaches using longitude and latitude coordinates [0026] to determined distances between two devices to make determinations).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the method/system wherein determining (i.e. via a confidence level) that the second utility meter (120) is fed by the transformer (102) further comprises determining that a distance between the first utility meter (110) and the second utility meter (120) satisfies a threshold (as Kann teaches determining relative distances between elements of the power network such that even if voltage differences are within a defined threshold, the system is capable of determining the two do not belong with one another if the distance is larger than a threshold; [0052] and [0054]).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the method/system wherein the operations further comprise: determining, for each utility meter (each of 110-120; Fig. 1) within a set of utilities meters (110-120), a likelihood (i.e. confidence level) that the meter (one of the meters found in the set of meters 110-120) is fed by the transformer (102) by, at least, performing a time-based correlation (as Kann teaches using the timestamped data for correlating meters to transformers and their respective positions within the network to allocate transformers to groups of meters) between the first electrical measurements (i.e. the timestamped voltage measurements) and individual electrical measurements from each utility meter in the set (i.e. the timestamped voltage measurements for each meter of the meter set 110-120), each individual electrical measurement (i.e. each timestamped voltage measurements for each meter) taken within a predefined time window (as defined by the time of interest); ranking (using the confidence interval/level; [0053]), each utility meter (each of 110-120) in the set based on its respective likelihood (as correlated); and for at least one of the utility meters in the set (110-120), associating a second load supplied through the at least one of the utility meters (110-120) with the transformer (102) based on the ranking (as by using confidence levels, Kann associated a second voltage from a meter of the group of meters to the transformer 102 using the difference of a signal voltage measurement bases on the ranking of that difference as associated with the transformer; [0053] [0057]).
With respect to claim 7 and 17, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the method/system wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining additional non-electrical data from a third utility meter (114; as Kann teaches in [0026] obtaining GPS data from the meters), determining that the third utility meter (114) is fed by a second transformer (106) in the electrical power distribution network (100) based on a distance (defined by area 108) between the third utility meter (114) and the second transformer (106) as determined from the additional non-electrical data (i.e. as Kann teaches meters and transforms are associated with one another based on distance); obtaining third electrical measurements (i.e. voltage timestamped measurements) from the third utility meter (114) at third predetermined time intervals (respective to the third meter 114); obtaining fourth electrical measurements from a fourth utility meter (116) at the third predetermined time intervals (as defined by the time intervals for that fourth utility meter 116); determining (via a confidence level; [0053] [0057]) that the fourth utility meter (116) is fed by the second transformer (106) including performing a time-based correlation (using the timestamped voltage measurements) between the third electrical measurements from the third utility meter (114) and the fourth electrical measurements from the fourth utility meter (116; [0054]) within a second predefined time window (as similarly done with the first and second measurements from the first and second meters and their respective time windows but respective to the third and fourth meters); and associating a fourth load (i.e. voltage) supplied through the fourth utility meter (116) with the second transformer (106) in the computer model (i.e. computer generated map; [0059]) of the electrical power distribution network (100) based on the determination that the fourth utility meter (116) is fed by the second transformer (106).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the system/method wherein the predetermined time intervals comprise a first duration of a measurement duration (i.e. a time when measurements are made; [0029]), wherein the measurement duration (i.e. the overall period) exceeds the first duration (i.e. as the first duration are considered to be the smaller intervals that make up the measurement duration).
With respect to claim 19, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the system wherein the first utility meter is an AMI meter (as the meters defined in [0025-0026]).
With respect to claim 23, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the computer-implemented method wherein determining that the second utility meter (112) is fed by the transformer (102) consists of performing the time-based correlation (via 218) between the first electrical measurements from the first utility meter (110) and the second electrical measurements from the second utility meter (112) within the predefined time window ( as defined by the timestamped data that overlaps being used as the window of time for the two meters).
With respect to claim 24, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the computer-implemented method comprising obtaining, from the second utility meter (112), only the second electrical measurements (Kann teaches in [0025] [f]or instance, the meters 110-120 may upload data with a time-stamp indicating a time at which the power was consumed, and a voltage or current value indicating the amount of electricity consumed at the time of the time-stamp; therefore, the examiner has interpreted Kann as teaching an embodiment where the second meter 112 only sends electrical measurements to the correlation module).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kann (2016/0109491) in view of Song (CN 115545240A).
With respect to claim 21, Kann teaches in Fig. 2 the computer-implemented method, wherein performing the time-based correlation between the first electrical measurements from the first utility meter (i.e. time stamped voltage data from meter 110) and the second electrical measurements from the second utility meter (i.e. time stamped voltage data from meter 112) within the predefined time window (defined by the timestamped data that overlaps being used as the window of time for the meters) but remains silent regarding computing a correlation coefficient between a voltage time series for the first utility meter and a voltage time series for the second utility meter.
Song teaches a similar correlation module that performs a correlation analysis by calculating a Person correlation coefficient between two voltage average values or the standard difference series, s300.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the correlation module of Kann to include the algorithmic process taught in Song because such a modification aids in determining the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two changing signals over time, thereby aiding in determining which transformer is feeding power to a meter.
With respect to claim 22, Kann as modified teaches in Fig. 2 the computer-implemented method wherein determining that the second utility meter (112) is fed by the transformer (102) is responsive to determining that the correlation coefficient (via the modified correlation module) between the voltage time series (i.e. stored time-stamped data for that meter) for the first utility meter (110) and the voltage time series for the second utility meter (112) satisfies a threshold value (as Song teaches using a threshold for determining a result).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flammer, III (2014/0012524) which teaches using time stamped data to classify events and determine what transformers are connected to what nodes of the network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights