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 .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 2, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: a) In claim 2 line 5, please change "comparing the stabilized frequency of the detected current signal" to: --comparing a stabilized frequency of the detected current signal--.
b) In claim 3 lines 2-3, please change "the predetermined magnitude threshold is set at a percentage of the normal magnitude of the detected current signal." to: --the predetermined magnitude threshold is set at a percentage of a normal magnitude of the detected current signal.--.
c) In claim 5 lines 5-6, please change "the protective action includes isolating the affected section" to:
--the protective action including isolating the affected section--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 1 lines 6-7 recites "advancing to a subsequent step if the difference between the frequencies surpasses a predetermined frequency threshold". Similarly, claim 1 lines 9-10 recites "advancing to a subsequent step if the magnitude falls below a predetermined magnitude threshold." It is not clear by what is exactly meant by "a subsequent step." The claim does not define any "steps," and it is not clear if each of the action limitations in the current claim are meant to be interpreted as "steps" in a sequence, or if a subsequent step refers to some other processing step not recited in the claim. Furthermore, the term "subsequent" could encompass any step that comes after, and thus a person of ordinary skill would not know whether "subsequent" refers to the next immediate step or some other step described later in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested. b) Claim 2 lines 8-9 recites "assessing the recovery of the magnitude of the detected current signal to its original level prior to the anomaly." It is not clear from the claim what is meant by "the anomaly." While claims 1 and 2 recite detecting circuit anomalies in a transformer, there has not been any previous clear designation on what constitutes "the anomaly." Does "the anomaly" refer necessarily to the "an open circuit" or "a short circuit"? Or is "the anomaly" referenced here referring to some other fault or event? Appropriate correction/clarification is requested to clearly define the claim.
c) Claim 7 lines 8-10 recites "advancing to a subsequent step if the difference between the frequencies surpasses a predetermined frequency threshold". Similarly, claim 7 lines 11-13 recites "advancing to a subsequent step if the magnitude falls below a predetermined magnitude threshold." It is not clear by what is exactly meant by "a subsequent step." The term "subsequent" could encompass any step that comes after, and thus a person of ordinary skill would not know whether "subsequent" refers to the next immediate step or some other step described later in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested. Dependent claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-6 are to a process and claim 7 is to a machine. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A method for detecting circuit anomalies in a current transformer, executed by a measurement module that is part of an intelligent electronic device, comprising:
comparing the frequency of a detected current signal originating from the secondary winding of the current transformer with the frequency of a detected voltage signal sourced from a primary conductor around which the current transformer is wound, and advancing to a subsequent step if the difference between the frequencies surpasses a predetermined frequency threshold;
assessing the magnitude of the detected current signal and advancing to a subsequent step if the magnitude falls below a predetermined magnitude threshold; analyzing the Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) of the detected current signal and contrasting it with a predetermined THD threshold, subsequently determining:
an open circuit within the current transformer if the THD exceeds the predetermined THD threshold,
a short circuit within the current transformer if the THD is below the predetermined THD threshold.
7. An intelligent electronic device configured to detect circuit anomalies in a current transformer, the device comprising:
a measurement module configured to receive a current signal originating from the secondary winding of the current transformer and a voltage signal sourced from a primary conductor around which the current transformer is wound;
a processor programmed to execute the following steps:
comparing the frequency of the received current signal with the frequency of the received voltage signal, and advancing to a subsequent step if the difference between the frequencies surpasses a predetermined frequency threshold;
assessing the magnitude of the received current signal and advancing to a subsequent step if the magnitude falls below a predetermined magnitude threshold;
analyzing the Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) of the received current signal and contrasting it with a predetermined THD threshold, subsequently determining:
an open circuit within the current transformer if the THD exceeds the predetermined THD threshold,
a short circuit within the current transformer if the THD is below the predetermined THD threshold;
a communication interface configured to transmit an alert to a designated recipient via electronic communication or trigger a protective action that includes isolating the affected section of the circuit to prevent further damage when either an open circuit or a short circuit within the current transformer is determined.
The bolded limitations above for detecting circuit anomalies in a current transformer describe a series of mental process data comparisons and data evaluation steps that could be performed mentally by a person or on pen and paper. The limitations of "comparing the frequency of a detected current signal originating from the secondary winding of the current transformer with the frequency of a detected voltage signal sourced from a primary conductor around which the current transformer is wound, and advancing to a subsequent step if the difference between the frequencies surpass a predetermined frequency threshold," amount to a mental process to compare between two sets of numerical frequency data to determine a difference, or a mathematical concept to calculate a numerical difference based on a subtraction between two numerical frequency values. The comparison of this frequency difference to a predetermined frequency threshold amounts to a mental process to compare between two sets of data. While the processed data comes from particular sections of the current transformer, the claims do not define any particular sensor arrangement, and thus amount to informational details of the types of "data" used in the calculations. The limitations of "assessing the magnitude of the detected current signal and advancing to a subsequent step if the magnitude falls below a predetermined magnitude threshold" amounts to a mental process to compare a magnitude value to a threshold. The limitations of "analyzing the Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) of the detected current signal and contrasting it with a predetermined THD threshold" amount to a mental process to analyze/evaluate a THD value (or a mathematical concept to calculate a THD value), and a mental process to compare it with a predetermined THD threshold. The claim limitations of "determining an open circuit within the current transformer if the THD exceeds the predetermined THD threshold" and "a short circuit within the current transformer if the THD is below the predetermined THD threshold," amount to further mental process steps to classify the comparison result into one of two categories depending on whether the THD is above or below the predetermined THD threshold. Taken together, the sequence of bolded limitations defines an algorithm to compare between two sets of data over various criteria to determine an informational-based analysis result of whether an open circuit or short circuit is present in within the current transformer.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitations for "executed by a measurement module that is part of an intelligent electronic device," "an intelligent electronic device," "a processor programmed to execute the following steps," and "a communication interface" amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (2) the recitation of "a measurement module configured to receive a current signal originating from the secondary winding of the current transformer and a voltage signal sourced from a primary conductor around which the current transformer is wound" amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) to describe data that must be gathered in any case, without any structural/arrangement details of the generic measurement module itself; and (3) the recitation "to transmit an alert to a designated recipient via electronic communication" amounts to insignificant post-solution reporting of an output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim limitations of "trigger a protective action that includes isolating the affected section of the circuit to prevent further damage when either an open circuit or a short circuit within the current transformer is determined" amounts to an integration into a practical application beyond just reporting a data-based result, but such a limitation is preceded by an "or" limitation and thus may not actually occur (as only a data-based alert may occur instead of any carried-out physical action).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The recitations for a measurement module that is part of an intelligent electronic device, the intelligent electronic device, the processor programmed to perform the following steps, and the communication device, do not add something significantly more because they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment (e.g., processor, communication interface, etc.) is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94). Selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content, storing and retrieving data from memory) from within a range of well- known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware is not significantly more, (see Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(MPEP 2106.05(a)II last paragraph). The recitation of "a measurement module configured to receive a current signal originating from the secondary winding of the current transformer and a voltage signal sourced from a primary conductor around which the current transformer is wound" amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional measurement arrangement. The recitation "to transmit an alert to a designated recipient via electronic communication" amounts to insignificant post-solution reporting of an output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states that when “whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)). The claim limitations of "trigger a protective action that includes isolating the affected section of the circuit to prevent further damage when either an open circuit or a short circuit within the current transformer is determined" amounts to significantly more, but such a limitation is presented with a preceding "or" limitation and thus may not actually occur (as only a data-based alert may occur instead of any carried-out physical action).
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process as these claims describe further data comparison steps or details on setting the thresholds for comparisons, which can be carried out mentally or on pen and paper by a person. Dependent claim 5 describes "issuing an alert…wherein the alert is transmitted to a designated recipient via electronic communication", which amounts to insignificant extrasolution data outputting of a comparison result and does not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Dependent claim 5 also contains limitations for "triggering a protective action…the protective action includes isolating the affected section of the circuit to prevent further damage," which does amount to an integration into a practical application or significantly more, but such a limitation is presented with a preceding "or" limitation and thus may not actually occur (as only a data-based alert may occur instead of any carried-out physical action).
5. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated determination of an open circuit or short circuit within the current transformer to drive a physical change in operation, transformation, or maintenance or repair to a machine or technical process, could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Vangool et al. (US Pat. No. 8,847,573, hereinafter "Vangool") at least teaches a method for detecting circuit anomalies in a current transformer, executed by a measurement module that is part of an intelligent electronic device (Vangool Fig. 3, abstract, col. 2 lines 16-18, and col. 2 lines 22-50 teach a method for detecting open and short circuit faults (anomalies) in a current transformer (CT), executed by an open and short CT detection circuit that is part of an intelligent processor device).8. However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest art, Vangool et al. (US Pat. No. 8,847,573) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method comprising:
comparing the frequency of a detected current signal originating from the secondary winding of the current transformer with the frequency of a detected voltage signal sourced from a primary conductor around which the current transformer is wound, and advancing to a subsequent step if the difference between the frequencies surpasses a predetermined frequency threshold; in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 7 contains allowable subject matter because the closest art, Vangool et al. (US Pat. No. 8,847,573) fails to anticipate or render obvious an intelligent electronic device comprising a processor programmed to execute the following steps: comparing the frequency of the received current signal with the frequency of the received voltage signal, and advancing to a subsequent step if the difference between the frequencies surpasses a predetermined frequency threshold, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.9. Dependent claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Pertinent Art
10. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action 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. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Faxvog et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0019962) discloses Sensing and Control Electronics For a Power Grid Protection System. B. Juha et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0279048) discloses Method and an Apparatus for Supervision of Current Transformer in a Differential Protection System.
C. Ball (US Pat Pub. 2014/0306716) discloses Methods for Detecting an Open Current Transformer.
D. Brooks (US Pat. No. 6,452,767) discloses Arcing Fault Detection System for a Secondary Line of a Current Transformer.
E. Chowdhury et al. (US Pat. No. 11,177,645) discloses Systems and Methods for Improving Restricted Earth Fault Protection.
F. Dvorak et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0074148) discloses Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter System.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9:30 am to 6 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
PAUL D. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 1/14/2026