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 responsive to the communication received on 01/31/2024. The claims 1-17 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 11, & 14 is/are in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, in line 2, the word “SCADA” should be changed to “Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)” (as in Spec, page 9 line 15) rather than merely reciting an acronym in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1- 10:
“a data monitoring module”: this is described as a monitoring circuitry 233. See fig. 2 and Spec page 10, lines 10-15: “monitors electrical signals (for example, voltage and/or current signals) that are produced…the monitoring circuitry 233 may be a voltage sensor that monitors the voltage that the voltage regulation device 210 provides to the load”
In claims 5- 8:
“a display module”: See page 2, lines 1-5 & Page 6 lines 7-8: the screen of the external oscilloscope and/or at another interface; Page 3, lines 18-20, “data analysis and display tool”
In claims 14-17:
“a data management module”: “a data analysis tool 180” placed inside the “remote station 295” of fig. 2; See spec, page 4 lines 11-15; page 14, lines 20-31, “The process 500 is performed as part of the data tool 180, which is stored in the electronic memory of the remote station 295”
“a visualization module”: See Spec, page 9, lines 23-28: “The remote station 295 includes an electronic processor, an electronic memory, and a visualization 25 apparatus (for example, a screen).”; page 15, lines 2- 25: “The oscillography data may be presented as a function of time, as shown in the virtual oscilloscope plot 282 of FIG. 6.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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- 11 & 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
The claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A control system comprising:
a data monitoring module configured to:
[a] obtain one or more status indicators of a voltage regulation system, each status indicator corresponding to an operating parameter of the voltage regulation system;
[b] determine a state value of each status indicator at a second time;
[c] compare the state value of each status indicator to a state value for that status indicator at a first time, the first time occurring before the second time;
[d] determine whether any operating parameter of the voltage regulation system changed state based on the comparison; and
[e] if any operating parameter of the voltage regulation system changed state, store a record in a dataset, the record comprising the state value of all of the status indicators and a time stamp that comprises the second time.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a system with a data monitoring module, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations [b] to [e], shown above without bold emphasis. These limitation(s) shown above without bold emphasis is/are considered an abstract idea based exception because they cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Put differently, the limitations of “determine a state value of each status indicator at a second time; compare the state value of each status indicator to a state value for that status indicator at a first time, the first time occurring before the second time; determine whether any operating parameter of the voltage regulation system changed state based on the comparison; and if any operating parameter of the voltage regulation system changed state” are limitations that can be practically performed in human’s mind.
For example, human mind can observe and compare two subsequent values to judge if there is change in state and determine/conclude that operating parameter of the voltage regulation system has changed. In summary, these limitations shown without bold emphasis are broad enough to be able to be performed in human mind via observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion hence are “mental processes”. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components as in this case, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements [a] (“obtain one or more status indicators of a voltage regulation system, each status indicator corresponding to an operating parameter of the voltage regulation system”) and [e] (“if any operating parameter of the voltage regulation system changed state, store a record
in a dataset, the record comprising the state value of all of the status indicators and a time stamp that comprises the second time.”) and “data monitoring module”.
The limitations [a] and [e] go nothing beyond mere data gathering and recording steps hence are insignificant extra-solution activities already recognized by the courts as such. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (I).
The elements of “a data monitoring module” is akin to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) because it is recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the additional elements individually and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do 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(s) of limitations [a] and [e] amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and the limitation of “a data monitoring module” is akin to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, examiner takes an Official notice that these insignificant extra-solution activities are well-understood, routine, conventional activity by relying on the cited prior arts as evidence per Berkheimer memo. The using of the data monitoring module to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2 & 9- 10, the claim depends on claim 1 and recites the same abstract idea and the additional elements of the claim 1. The claims 2 & 9- 10 further recites other limitations to specify the type of the data information being obtained. For example, the limitation of claim 2 (“the status indicators comprise regulator status indicators that correspond to operating parameters of a voltage regulation device coupled to the control system, and control status indicators that correspond to operating parameters of the control system”) and limitations of claims 9 -10 (“wherein the control status indicators comprise one or more of an indicator related to an operating status of the control, an indicator related to a command issued by the control, an indicator related to a command received by the voltage regulation device, and an indicator related to a monitored value” and “ wherein the control status indicators comprise one or more indicators that are determined based on a plurality of other status indicators” ) are simple enough to be performed in human’s mind. Thus, these claims also fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3- 8, these claims depend on claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above in claim 1. These claims also recite new limitations that can be interpreted as additional elements. However, these additional elements are akin to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (claim 3-4 in the field of transmitting power data using SCADA protocol) --see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, even considering these additional elements individually or in combination, they still fail to provide a practical application to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and an inventive step. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is reproduced below.
11. A method comprising:
[a] monitoring the state of one or more operating parameters of an electrical system during an observation period to detect changes in the state of the one or more operating parameters; and
[b] in response to detecting a change in the state of any of the operating parameters at a time in the observation period:
[b1] generating a record that comprises one or more values and a time stamp, the one or more values each representing the state of one operating parameter at the time in the observation period and the time stamp comprising the time in the observation period; and
[b2] adding the generated record to a dataset such that the dataset includes records of state changes.
1. Step 1, Yes. This claim is to a process thus is one of the four statutory category.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites the limitations of the “monitoring the state of one or more operating parameters of an electrical system during an observation period to detect changes in the state of the one or more operating parameters” and “in response to detecting a change in the state of any of the operating parameters at a time in the observation period: generating a record that comprises one or more values and a time stamp, the one or more values each representing the state of one operating parameter at the time in the observation period and the time stamp comprising the time in the observation period”. These limitations, as drafted, under BRI cover performance of the limitation in human’s mind via observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1. That is, no computer or any other tools are required in order to perform these steps other that at most with the aid of pen and paper. The monitoring step covers user observing the data that are available to them and generating a record when detecting a change as part of monitoring by the human mind by performing some evaluation or via simple mathematical operations to generate a record. These limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2, No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites limitations shown above in limitation [b2] with the bold emphasis is an additional element. The limitation [b2] (“adding the generated record to a dataset such that the dataset includes records of state changes”) is akin to adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere adding of an insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. 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 of “adding the generated record to a dataset such that the dataset includes records of state changes” amounts no more than mere adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) because this is a post-solution activity being performed to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element is well-understood, routine, conventional and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect per Berkheimer memo by relying on the cited references as documentary evidence. Mere adding of an insignificant extra-solution activity individually or in combination that is only well-understood, routine, and conventional cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim depends on claim 11 and recites the same abstract idea and additional elements discussed above in claim 11. The claim also recites the limitation of “monitoring the state of the one or more operating parameters comprises monitoring status indicators corresponding to the one or more operating parameters, and detecting changes in the state of a particular one of the operating parameters comprises comparing a state value of the status indicator corresponding to that operating parameter at a later time to the state value of that status indicator at an earlier time” that also can be performed in human’s mind hence still abstract. Thus, the claim 13 fails to provide a practical application and an inventive step. The claim is not patent eligible.
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- 10 & 14-17 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.
I) Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation "the observation period" in the last line of the claim. The claim 14 is an independent claim and does not depend on the claim 11 that previously recites “an observation period”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 14.
For the examination purpose, this limitation is interpreted as “an observation period”.
II) Regarding claims 15- 17, these claims are also rejected to because of their dependency cause to carry the same deficiency of the claim 14.
III) Regarding claims 1 & 14, claim limitations a) “a data monitoring module”, “a data management module”, and “a visualization module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the corresponding entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As to claim 1
The claimed “a data monitoring module” is being mentioned to perform the functions of: obtain state values, compare the state values, and storing the record. The specification in page 1, lines 29- 30 describes a black box module (see MPE 2181 I (A)) “data monitoring module” and its various functions but still fails to elaborate in sufficient detail to clarify and link the entire function to the claimed data monitoring module. The specification in page 10 lines 8- 22, and fig. 2 state that “monitoring circuitry 233” like a voltage sensor can be used to monitor the voltage which can be provided to the link 259 to a control 260 that includes storage 262 and a database 270. However, the specification’s “monitoring circuitry 233” fails to perform the entire claimed function such as “compare the state value” and “store a record in a dataset,” since these functions are being performed by the control 260 and not by the monitoring circuit.
Thus, the specification fails to clearly link which element(s) correspond to the claimed “data monitoring module” to perform the entire claimed function thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
As to claim 14:
The elements of “a data management module”, and “a visualization module” are merely being described as black-box entities in page 2 lines 28- 31 since this section of the specification fail to elaborate the required corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire function. The specification in page 4 lines 11- 15 & page 15 lines 2- 25 appear to merely mention these elements as part of the remote station 295 having processor, memory, and a display screen. However, this page 4 of the specification does not clearly link the data management module to the remote station 295. Neither its analysis tool 180 does. Furthermore, the specification fails to clarify what is included in the tool 180 other than stating “data analysis tool 180 is stored on the electronic memory of the remote station 295” (page 9 lines 24-26) so that it can execute the steps of the fig. 5. The specification also appear to state that “a screen” of the station 295 may correspond to structure for the claimed “visualization module” in page 9 lines 23- 28, but still fails to clearly link the screen to the claimed “visualization module” or the display module. That is, the specification does not clearly link the item elements of the specification to the claimed “data management module” and “a visualization module”. Put differently, the specification fails to clearly link the structure of the remote station 295 or the tool 180 to the claimed data management module and the visualization module to perform the entire claimed functions thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Therefore, these claims 1 & 14 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Note: Examiner recommends to replace these three placeholder terms as interpreted above in office action so that these terms will no-longer be interpreted accordance to 112(f) and also can overcome the 112(b) rejections. Again, for the examination purpose, a computing device with a processor and memory and a voltage/current sensor is interpreted as claimed “data monitoring module”, “a remote computing device” with a processor and memory is interpreted as claimed “a data management module”, and a computer screen/user interface is interpreted as claimed “a visualization module”.
IV) Regarding claims 2- 8, these claims are also rejected because of their dependency with rejected claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 9- 11, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Dang (US 20180212415 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dang teaches a control system comprising: a data monitoring module1 [“the electrical device 1 may comprise a sensing unit 10 for sensing operational data of the electrical device 1 during its operation, and a storage unit 30 for storing”] configured to: ([029-030]);
[a] obtain [“sensor capable of sensing various operational data, for example, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and the like”] one or more status indicators2 [“the operational data that can be sensed may include voltage, current and temperature”] of a voltage regulation system [“any currently available device that requires electrical energy to operate” that provides regulated power/voltage like in washing machine, ships or in AC machine], each status indicator corresponding to an operating parameter of the voltage regulation system ([028-030]);
[b] determine a state value [“compare values of two consecutive operational data from the sensing unit”] of each status indicator at a second time; [c] compare [“determination unit 201 may compare values of two consecutive operational data from the sensing unit”] the state value of each status indicator to a state value for that status indicator at a first time, the first time occurring before the second time; [d] determine [“the storage unit only stores changed operational data.”] whether any operating parameter of the voltage regulation system changed state based on the comparison ([011-012, 039]); and
[e] if any operating parameter of the voltage regulation system changed state, store a record [“the storage unit may also store time information synchronized with the operational data sensed by the sensing unit.”] in a dataset, the record comprising the state value of all of the status indicators and a time stamp that comprises the second time ([033- 034, 039-040])
Regarding claim 2, Dang teaches the control system of claim 1, wherein the status indicators comprise (1) regulator status indicators [e.g., voltage or current values] that correspond to operating parameters of a voltage regulation device coupled to the control system, and (ii) control status indicators [e.g., temperature values] that correspond to operating parameters of the control system ([030]).
Regarding claim 3, Dang teaches the control system of claim 1, wherein the data monitoring module is further configured to provide [“device 1 being capable of communicating with the server 2 for data transmission”, “transmit operational data to the server”] the dataset to a separate device [e.g., server 2 or “the electrical device”] ([037-038, 042-043]).
Regarding claim 9, Dang teaches the control system of claim 2, wherein the control status indicators comprise one or more of an indicator related to
an operating status [value(s) voltage/current measured by the sensor 10 and they are related to various commands] of the control an indicator related to (direct or indirect) a command issued by the control, an indicator related to a command received by the voltage regulation device, and an indicator related to a monitored value [temperature, humidity etc.,] ([030], claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Dang teaches the control system of claim 2, wherein the control status indicators comprise one or more indicators [e.g., power value (as part of “or combinations thereof”) that can be based on the voltage and current status when “humidity, air supply volume” etc. are regulator status indicators in above dependent claim 2] that are determined based on a plurality [“or combinations thereof”] of other status indicators ([030-031], claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Only in summary, Dang teaches a method comprising:
monitoring the state of one or more operating parameters [“operational data that can be sensed may include voltage , current and temperature, and may also include humidity”] of an electrical system during an observation period to detect changes in the state of the one or more operating parameters ([030, 039]); and
in response to detecting a change [“compare values of two consecutive operational data from the sensing unit”] in the state of any of the operating parameters at a time in the observation period: generating a record [“storage unit may also store time information synchronized with the operational data sensed by the sensing unit.”] that comprises one or more values and a time stamp, the one or more values each representing the state of one operating parameter at the time in the observation period and the time stamp comprising the time in the observation period; and adding [“storage unit thus only stores changed operational data”] the generated record to a dataset such that the dataset includes records of state changes ([034, 039]).
Regarding claim 13, Dang teaches the method of claim 11, wherein monitoring the state of the one or more operating parameters comprises monitoring status indicators corresponding to the one or more operating parameters, and detecting changes in the state of a particular one of the operating parameters comprises comparing a state value of the status indicator corresponding to that operating parameter at a later time to the state value of that status indicator at an earlier time ([039], Figs. 1-2).
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, 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 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang (US 20180212415 A1) in view of Lee (US 20120330587 A1).
Dang teaches the control system of claim 3 comprising a data monitoring module provide a dataset to the separate device ([038]).
However, Dang fails to teach what type of the communication protocol its utilizes to implement the dataset transmission to the external device although it says it can use “any communication technology currently known to those skilled in the art” (para 043). That is, Dang fails to teach the data monitoring module is configured to provide the dataset to the separate device using the SCADA protocol as claimed.
Lee relates to power distribution monitoring system by using a communication protocol ([002]). Lee teaches a data monitoring module is further configured to provide the dataset to a separate device, wherein the data monitoring module is configured to provide the dataset to the separate device using the SCADA protocol [“the remote monitoring dedicated protocol is a remote SCADA protocol such as MODBUS or distributed network protocol (DNP) such as DNP 3.0”] ([027, 035]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Lee and Dang because they both related to transmitting power data from one computing device to a separate computing device and (2) have the providing of the dataset from the data monitoring module to the external/server device to utilize well-known industry proven SCADA protocol as in Lee. Doing so would allow secure and reliable data transfer from the data monitoring module to the external device of Dang as can be clear to PHOSITA. Furthermore, SCADA protocol of Lee can be understood as an exemplary protocol already envisioned but not explicated listed in Dang’s system to implement its “communication technology” of para. 043.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang (US 20180212415 A1) in view of Tiernan et al., (US 20230349608 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2008094477 A, see attached FOR document). The combination of Dang, Tiernan, and Kim is referred as DTK hereinafter.
Regarding claim 14, Dang teaches a system comprising:
[a] a data management module [Fig. 4, “a terminal device matched thereto can be designed to receive and store operational data… computer, and the like” of fig. 4 or Fig. 3, “a server”] configured to: obtain a dataset [“receiving operational data from the electrical device as described in the foregoing embodiments”. As shown in figs. 1-2, the operational data are first stored in the device 1’s memory/storage unit 30 that are captured by the sensing unit 10] comprising records, each record representing a state change [“storage unit only stores changed operational data”] of at least one operating parameter of an electrical system, wherein each record comprises state values of the operating parameters and a time stamp [“storage unit may also store time information synchronized with the operational data”], each time stamp being a time when a state change for at least one operating parameter was detected ([034, 039, 043-045], Figs. 1-3); and
[b] a visualization module [“an output unit 33 for outputting information indicative of the failure”] configured to present a graph [“the output unit 33 may be a display unit that provides literal or other graphical or signal information”] comprising the values in the dataset
Dang’s operational data that are received at the terminal device 3/server 2 from the electrical device 1 has missing values/gaps in the dataset since its stores only changed operational data rather than storing operational data values for each time stamp in order to reduce memory storage requirement. While Dang teaches its server 2/terminal device 3 displaying the received operational datasets synchronized with time stamps, it does not teach the displaying of the dataset in the continuous manner/oscillography data and by filling in the data gaps (missing data) between various timestamps in the operational datasets. Simply put, as shown above with strikethrough emphasis, Dang fails to teach
(i) prepare oscillography data from the dataset by generating at one filler record and adding the least one filler record between a first record in the dataset and a second record in the dataset, the first record having an earlier time stamp than the second record, and the filler record comprising the same state values as the first record and a time stamp between the time stamp of the first record and the time stamp of the second record and
(ii) its present a graph comprising the values by the visualization module is from the oscillography data.
However, filling in the missing data values from a datasets to create continuous data values/oscillography data using various techniques including by using a forward filling of the last received values for the gaps in the datasets is well-known in the art.
For example, Tiernan teaches a process for anomaly detection by processing the received telemetry datasets (Abstract). Tiernan teaches a data management module configured to: obtain a dataset [“the telemetry data is collected periodically and continuously”, analogous to operational data of Dang provided to the terminal or server device] comprising records of at least one operating parameter of an electrical system and prepare complete data from the dataset by generating at least one filler record [“forward fill missing values”] and adding [“Forward filling refers to replacing null values with last seen values”] the least one filler record between a first record in the dataset and a second record in the dataset, the first record having an earlier time stamp than the second record, and the filler record comprising the same state values as the first record and a time stamp between the time stamp of the first record and the time stamp of the second record ([022, 031-032, 041]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Tiernan and Dang because they both related to processing the obtained datasets before user analyzing the result of the datasets and (2) modify the obtained datasets of Dang to prepare a complete dataset from the received dataset at server/terminal device by generating at least one filler record for the missing values and adding the least one filler record as in Tiernan. Doing so would allow the datasets of the Dang to be made complete dataset for each of the timestamps on the observation period without any missing values to be presented to some users (without memory storage capacity issue) who still want to analyze the complete data rather than analyzing only the changed data as can be clear to PHOSITA.
Dang in view of Tiernan is still silent about the prepared complete datasets to be oscillography data so that the complete data can be displayed in traditional oscillograph for the users who like to view the collected data using the traditional oscilloscope.
Kim teaches a system [“performance testing device (3)”, analogous to Dang’s server 2/terminal device 3] comprising a processor and memory to receive, using a communication unit 11, status indicator corresponding to operating parameter of a voltage regulation system and to display the captured status indicators (Fig. 3 & associated texts). Specifically, Kim teaches a system comprising a data management preparing oscillography data [“hard disk (14) for storing data reconstructed by the data reconstruction unit (13);”] from the complete datasets [“A reception buffer 12 for temporarily storing data received through the communication unit 11;”] and visualization module [“A display unit 17 outputting an oscilloscope graph screen”] configured to present a graph [“outputting time-synchronized data stored on an oscilloscope screen according to a pre-stored program”] comprising the values in the oscillography data plotted as a function of time for the observation period (Figs. 3-4, page 4, page 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Kim and Dang in view of Tiernan because they both related to a visualization module to display the received datasets in a plot as a function of time for the voltage status values and (2) modify the complete datasets (without missing values for the operational data) to prepare oscillography data and to use a visualization module to present a graph comprising the values in the oscillography data plotted as a function of time for the observation period as in Kim. Doing so would allow the Dang in view of Tiernan’s datasets to be displayed in “the oscilloscope screen” so that operators who still prefer to analyze the dataset only through an oscilloscope screen (since oscilloscope is being used to analyze voltage, current, power data for long time) also can check the voltage, current state, phase, and frequency errors using old technique (Kim page 4). Accordingly, the combination of Dang, Tiernan, and Kim teach each limitation of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 15, DTK teaches/suggests the system of claim 14, wherein the time stamps in the oscillography data include time stamps that are equally spaced in time [Fig. 4 of Kim shows the display in the oscilloscope screen is in equally spaced in time due to time synchronization], and the time stamps in the dataset are not equally spaced in time (Kim, Page 8, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, DTK teaches/suggests the system of claim 14, wherein the visualization module is further configured to visually present the time stamps of the dataset to thereby provide temporal labels for state transitions [displaying changed values of Dang in oscilloscope screen of Kim for the users who still want to view the sensed voltage/current data in the oscilloscope] (Kim, Page 8, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, DTK teaches/suggests the system of claim 14, wherein each record represents a state change of at least one operating parameter of a voltage regulator (Dang [039]).
Claim(s) 5-8 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang (US 20180212415 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2008094477 A, see attached FOR document).
Regarding claim 5, Dang teaches the control system of claim 1, wherein the data monitoring module is further configured to store the dataset into a storage 30 and to provide the dataset into a communication unit 40 ([028, 036, 038], Figs. 1- 2).
Dang teaches that is datasets to include changed operational data so the operational data includes missing values. However, in order to process the missing values by adding some values are well-known in the art such as via various interpolation techniques depending on needs and users choice.
Dang fails to teach its control system to include a display module that is receive the dataset stored in the storage 30 and provided to the communication unit 40. Thus, Dang fails to teach the data monitoring module is further configured to provide the dataset to a display module that is configured to visually present oscillography based on the dataset.
Kim teaches a system [“performance testing device (3)”] comprising a data monitoring computer to receive, using a communication unit 11, status indicator corresponding to operating parameter of a voltage regulation system and to display the captured status indicators (Fig. 3 & associated texts). Specifically, Kim teaches a control system comprising a data monitoring module [system of fig. 1 including sensors 20 and merging unit 24, analogous to Dang’s “electrical device 1”] configured to provide the dataset to a display module [system of fig. 3 including a display 17 outputting an oscilloscope graph screen, analogous to “the terminal device 3”] that is configured to visually present oscillography [“data reconstruction unit (13) for synchronizing and reconstructing and outputting data transmitted from each merging unit (1)”, “controller 15 outputs the voltage and current data stored in the hard disk 14 to the display unit 17 as an oscilloscope screen”] based on the dataset Figs. 3-4, page 4, page 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Kim and because they both related to a visualization module to display the received datasets in a plot as a function of time for the voltage status values and (2) modify the device 1 of Dang (i.e., its communication unit 40 of the device 1 to provide the datasets stored in the storage unit 30) to a display module that is configured to visually present oscillography based on the dataset as in Kim. Doing so would allow the Dang’s datasets to be displayed in “the oscilloscope screen” so that operators who still prefer to analyze the dataset only through an oscilloscope screen (since oscilloscope is being used to analyze voltage, current, power data for long time) also can check the voltage, current state, phase, and frequency errors using old technique (Kim page 4). Accordingly, the combination of Dang in view of Kim teach each limitation of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claims 6- 8, Dang in view of Kim teaches/suggests a display module that visually presents the oscillography and also teaches a separate device (server of fig. 3).
However, Dang in view of Kim fails to explicitly teach the display module is part of the control system as in claim 6
the display module visually presents the oscillography at the voltage regulation device as in claim 7
the display module visually presents the oscillography at the separate device as in claim 8.
It has been held that making portable, integral, separable, adjustable or continuous and rearrangement of parts themselves are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) and (V)
As outlined above, Dang in view of Kim does explicitly teach both the data monitoring module and a display module capable of presenting the oscillography for voltage regulation device or at the separate device. Therefore, making the display module (of Kim) is part of the control system of the device 1 of (Dang) and the display module visually presents the oscillography at the voltage regulation device or the display module visually presents the oscillography at the separate device are not patentably distinguishable over Dang in view of Kim. This is at least because the specification does not provide any unexpected results about making the display module part of the control system, visually present the oscillography at the voltage regulation device, and at the separate device. Simply put, the inventions of the claims 6- 8 are not patentable over Dang in view of Kim since they are obvious matter of “design choice” over disclosure of Dang and Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Dang fails to teach generating oscillography data based on the dataset; and presenting a virtual oscilloscope trace based on the oscillography data.
However, Kim teaches generating oscillography data [“storing data reconstructed by the data reconstruction unit (13);”] based on the dataset [“A reception buffer 12 for temporarily storing data received through the communication unit 11”, analogous to data sent to the server or terminal device in Dang]; and presenting a virtual oscilloscope trace [“an oscilloscope screen as shown in FIG. 4”] based on the oscillography data (Page 4, page 8, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Kim and because they both related to a visualization module to display the received datasets in a plot as a function of time for the voltage status values and (2) modify the method of Dang to include the steps of generating oscillography data based on the dataset; and presenting a virtual oscilloscope trace based on the oscillography data as in Kim. Doing so would allow the Dang’s datasets to be displayed in “the oscilloscope screen” so that operators who are used to analyze the dataset only through an oscilloscope screen (since oscilloscope is being used to analyze voltage, current, power data for long time) also can check the voltage, current state, phase, and frequency errors using old technique (Kim page 4). Accordingly, the combination of Dang in view of Kim teach each limitation of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Gee (US 20080052335 A1) teaches, as shown in applicant’s fig. 6, prepare oscillography data from the dataset by generating at least one filler record [“the straight-line interpolation wherein a straight line (vector) is drawn”] and adding the least one filler record between a first record in the dataset and a second record in the dataset ([041]).
2) Schaar et al., (US 20210287858 A1) teaches a control system 210 comprising a data monitoring module 212, for power distribution network 101 that transfers electricity from a power source 102 to electrical loads 103 through a distribution path 104 and an electrical apparatus 110/210 including a monitoring module 212 that includes a voltage sensor including a voltage regulation device and a load tap changer ([019, 028], fig. 1-2).
3) Kaluzny et al. (US 20140265637 A1) teaches a control system for preventing a voltage regulator from being bypassed when certain safe bypass conditions are not met by obtaining one or more status indicators of the voltage regulation system ([035]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 This element is under 112(f) interpretation and also rejected under 112(b). See above. For the examination purpose, any computing device that can measure an electrical parameter is mapped as claimed “a data monitoring module” for the examination purpose.
2 See Spec, page 4, lines 28-30: “status indicators 190 are electrical signals (for example, voltage or current signals) or status 30 flags that provide information about operating parameters of the voltage regulation system.”