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 Amendment
Applicant has submitted the following:
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-23 are pending examination;
Claims 1, 11, 14, and 16 are newly amended;
Claims 2, 12, and 17 are newly cancelled;
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regard to the rejection under 35 USC 101, the claimed invention amounts to an improvement in technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements, such as the determining that the first voltage feed of the first power unit originates from a same sources as a second power unit, the determining that the first and second power units are configured to be connected to distinct power source, and the indication of a misconnection, are not an improvement in technology. Said limitations are improvements in the abstract idea, which is not an improvement in technology (MPEP 2106.05(a).II “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”.). Further, even if the claimed invention contained an inventive concept, as it is an abstract idea, the claimed invention is not patentable subject matter (MPEP 2106.05: “As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.")).
Applicant argues that none of the prior art teaches all of the recited claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the limitations:
determining that the first voltage feed of the first power unit originates from a same source as a second power unit based on a similarity between the first PLD and a second PLD of the second power unit satisfying a similarity threshold and occurring within a same timeframe proximate to the first time;
determining that the first power unit and the second power unit are configured to be connected to distinct power sources; and
an indication of a misconnection of the first power unit and/or the second power unit to the same source.
Examiner finds the argument persuasive. None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 11, or the computer program product of claim 16, comprising:
determining that the first voltage feed of the first power unit originates from a same source as a second power unit based on a similarity between the first PLD and a second PLD of the second power unit satisfying a similarity threshold and occurring within a same timeframe proximate to the first time;
determining that the first power unit and the second power unit are configured to be connected to distinct power sources; and
an indication of a misconnection of the first power unit and/or the second power unit to the same source.
The rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
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, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting a first Power Line Disturbance (PLD) in a first voltage feed of a first power unit at a first time;
comparing the first PLD to other PLDs aggregated from multiple power units;
determining that the first voltage feed of the first power unit originates from a same source as a second power unit based on a similarity between the first PLD and a second PLD of the second power unit satisfying a similarity threshold and occurring within a same timeframe proximate to the first time; and
recording that the first power unit and the second power unit receive power from the same source;
determining that the first power unit and the second power unit are configured to be connected to distinct power sources; and
transmitting, to a management system, an indication of a misconnection of the first power unit and/or the second power unit to the same source.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above; the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 recites a process and is therefore falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises process steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category.
Individually and collectively, the steps:
“detecting a first Power Line Disturbance (PLD) in a first voltage feed […] at a first time”;
“comparing the first PLD to other PLDs aggregated from multiple power units”;
“determining that the first voltage feed of the first power unit originates from a same source as a second power unit based on a similarity between the first PLD and a second PLD of the second power unit satisfying a similarity threshold and occurring within a same timeframe proximate to the first time”;
“recording that the first power unit and the second power unit receive power from the same source”;
“determining that the first power unit and the second power unit are configured to be connected to distinct power sources”; and
transmitting […] an indication of a misconnection of the first power unit and/or the second power unit to the same source”
may be performed as mental processes. Detecting a power line disturbance in a voltage feed is collecting and/or analyzing information, which may be performed as mental processes. Comparing disturbances to other aggregated disturbances is analysis, which may be performed as mental processes. Determining that the first voltage feed originates from the same source as a second power unit is analysis, which may be performed as mental processes. Recording that the first and second power unit receive power from the same source is collecting information and/or displaying a certain result of an analysis, which may be performed as mental processes. Determining that the power units are configured to be connected to distinct power sources is analysis, which may be performed as mental processes. Transmitting an indication of misconnection is displaying a result of the analysis, which may be performed as mental processes. The type of high-level information collecting and analyzing data recited in these elements has been found by the Federal Circuit to constitute patent ineligible matter (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind).
Similar limitations comprise the mental processes type abstract idea recited by independent claims 11 and 16.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether a claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 1, applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most significant of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea to technologically improve any aspect of a system that may be used to implement the highlighted steps such a generic computer. The limitation “a computer-implemented method” amounts to mere instruction to implement the process steps on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, any alleged improvement is in the abstract idea, which is not an improvement in technology (MPEP 2106.05(a).II “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”.).
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, none of the additional elements are utilized in a particularized manner of implementing the abstract idea process steps.
Regarding effectuation of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, the claim includes no such transformation or reduction. Recording that a two units receive power from the same source is not a transformation of a particular article to a different state. Instead, the claim as a whole amounts to collecting information (“detecting”), analyzing said information (“detecting”, “comparing”, and “determining”), and displaying certain results of the analysis (“recording” and “transmitting”).
Independent claim 11 recites additional elements “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage media storing program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform a method”, which amounts to implementing the instructions on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Independent claim 16 recites additional elements “A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform a method”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media” includes products that do not have physical or tangible form (“software per se”) and transitory forms (“signals per se”), and therefore is not directed to any statutory category (MPEP 2106.03.I). Further, the additional element of “one or more processors” amounts to a generic computer, and the claim as a whole amounts to implementing the instructions on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the claim elements reciting an abstract idea do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 11 and 16, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Instead, any inventive concept is in the judicial exception, and therefore not patentable subject matter (MPEP 2106.05: “As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.")).
Independent claims 1, 11 and 16 are therefore not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-10, 13-15, and 18-23 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One). Claims 3-8, 13-15, and 18-20 further detail the disturbance detected. Claims 9 recites additional elements that amount to a generic computer, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 10 further details the power units from which a detection is made. Claims 21-23 further detail the determining that the first voltage feed of the first power unit originates from the same source as the second power unit, which may be performed as mental processes. Dependent claims 3-10, 13-15, and 18-23 all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims 3-10, 13-15, and 18-23 therefore are also ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN GEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/B.B.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights