DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 includes the following limitations:
monitoring, using a power system response subsystem, at least one electrical parameter in an electric power system;
identifying, using a power system response subsystem, an event based on the at least one electrical parameter.
Both the first and second limitations above introduce a power system response subsystem. Since the power response subsystem was already introduced in the first limitation, the monitoring limitation, the examiner recommends for the applicant to amend the identifying limitation as follows:
identifying, using the power system response subsystem, an event based on the at least one electrical parameter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A system configured to generate an adaptive protective relay event report, the system comprising:
a power system response subsystem to:
monitor at least one electrical parameter in an electric power system; and
receive a trigger signal from a trigger source; and
an adaptive event report subsystem configured to generate an adaptive protective relay event report comprising a measure of at least one electrical parameter related to the event and based on:
the trigger source;
a pre-trigger start;
a duration; and
a sampling rate;
wherein the adaptive protective relay event report comprises the measure of the at least one electrical parameter related to the event beginning at a time established by the pre-trigger start and an event report trigger source, covering an interval established by the duration, and recorded at the sampling rate.
Claim 12 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method of generating an adaptive protective relay event report, the method comprising:
monitoring, using a power system response subsystem, at least one electrical parameter in an electric power system;
identifying, using a power system response subsystem, an event based on the at least one electrical parameter; and
generating, using an adaptive event report subsystem, an adaptive protective relay event report comprising at least one electrical parameter related to the event and based on:
a pre-trigger start;
a duration; and
a sampling rate;
wherein the adaptive protective relay event report comprises at least one electrical parameter related to the event beginning at a time established by the pre-trigger start and an event trigger source, covering an interval established by the duration, and recorded at the sampling rate.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the system, with a power system response subsystem and adaptive event report subsystem, does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The recited subsystems are not expressly defined in the claim language, and broadly interpreted, they could be components, hardware or software components, of a computer system.
Furthermore, the monitoring limitation could be interpreted as evaluating or tracking the recited electrical parameter. The claim does not expressly require any specific sensor making any specific measurements the recited at least one electrical parameter.
The additional limitations of receiving a trigger signal equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 13-14 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add insignificant computer subsystem limitations and/or insignificant extra solution data activity, i.e. receiving and storing data. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Dependent claims 4-11 and 15-22 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, and/or add insignificant computer limitations, i.e. subsystem limitations. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself). In addition, the recited protective action, in claims 11 and 22, is not defined in the claimed invention and does not equate to something significantly more than the abstract idea or a practical application. The recited protective action could also be viewed as insignificant extra solution data activity as it could relate to triggering an alarm or alert, i.e. insignificant post-solution data activity.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11-12, 15, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takemura (US 20190049490).
Regarding claim 1, Takemura discloses a system configured to generate an adaptive protective relay event report (see Abstract and paragraphs 0001 and 0056: fault waveform recording device, i.e. recorded fault waveform equates the recited report, system is a protective relay system that adapts to fault conditions, i.e. an adaptive protective relay), the system comprising:
a power system response subsystem to monitor at least one electrical parameter in an electric power system and receive a trigger signal from a trigger source (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0036, 0046, and 0064: discloses a CPU with processing subsystems, includes a subsystem that receives a trigger signal from a relay operation unit; and see paragraphs 0029-0030, 0044, and 0047: system monitors both current and voltage in a waveform); and
an adaptive event report subsystem configured to generate an adaptive protective relay event report comprising a measure of at least one electrical parameter related to the event (see Figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 0036-0037: discloses a CPU that includes software/subsystem configured to record the fault waveform, i.e. the recited adaptive protective relay event repot, waveform of an electrical parameter of current and/or voltage) and based on:
the trigger source (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0046 and 0064: recorded fault waveform is based on a trigger signal, i.e. trigger source);
a pre-trigger start (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0049 and paragraph 0056: record utilizes periods Ta and Tc, both which could be considered pre-trigger start signal as the specification defines the pre-trigger start as a period of time before the trigger);
a duration (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0047 and 0056: period Tb comprises a duration, Td also comprises a duration); and
a sampling rate (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0047 and 0056: sampling at a high sampling rate);
wherein the adaptive protective relay event report comprises the measure of the at least one electrical parameter related to the event beginning at a time established by the pre-trigger start and an event report trigger source, covering an interval established by the duration, and recorded at the sampling rate (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0047 and 0056: temporarily stores, at a high sampling rate, fault waveform data to be saved. In order to fulfill a user demand of saving waveforms a predetermined time prior to the event of a fault, CPU 32 causes data of a Tc+Td period from time t.sub.0−Tc to time t.sub.0+Td to be stored into storage B, i.e. samples; also the disclosed high-rate sampling interval is also a final report corresponding from a time from beginning of Ta through Tb; see paragraph 0037: waveform is of an electrical parameter of current and/or voltage).
Regarding claim 12, Takemura discloses a method of generating an adaptive protective relay event report (see Abstract and paragraphs 0001, 0036, and 0056: fault waveform recording device, i.e. recorded fault waveform equates the recited report, system is a protective relay system that adapts to fault conditions, i.e. an adaptive protective relay, CPU implements program/method of data processing the report), the method comprising:
monitoring, using a power system response subsystem, at least one electrical parameter in an electric power system and identifying, using a power system response subsystem, an event based on the at least one electrical parameter (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0036, 0046, and 0064: discloses a CPU with processing subsystems, includes a subsystem that monitors an electrical parameter and detects a fault event; and see paragraphs 0029-0030, 0044, and 0047: system monitor both current and voltage in a waveform); and
generating, using an adaptive event report subsystem, an adaptive protective relay event report comprising at least one electrical parameter related to the event (see Figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 0036-0037: discloses a CPU that includes software/subsystem configured to record the fault waveform, i.e. the recited adaptive protective relay event repot, waveform of an electrical parameter of current and/or voltage) and based on:
a pre-trigger start (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0049 and paragraph 0056: record utilizes periods Ta and Tc, both which could be considered pre-trigger start signal as the specification defines the pre-trigger start as a period of time before the trigger);
a duration (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0047 and 0056: period Tb comprises a duration, Td also comprises a duration); and
a sampling rate (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0047 and 0056: sampling at a high sampling rate);
wherein the adaptive protective relay event report comprises at least one electrical parameter related to the event beginning at a time established by the pre-trigger start and an event trigger source, covering an interval established by the duration, and recorded at the sampling rate (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0047 and 0056: temporarily stores, at a high sampling rate, fault waveform data to be saved. In order to fulfill a user demand of saving waveforms a predetermined time prior to the event of a fault, CPU 32 causes data of a Tc+Td period from time t.sub.0−Tc to time t.sub.0+Td to be stored into storage B, i.e. samples; also the disclosed high-rate sampling interval is also a final report corresponding from a time from beginning of Ta through Tb; see paragraph 0037: waveform is of an electrical parameter of current and/or voltage).
Regarding claim 4, Takemura discloses a variable settings subsystem configured to dynamically determine the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0056: dynamically determines high-rate recording interval windows based on dynamically determined triggers, each one with a different start time, i.e. pre-trigger start, different time along the x-axis, i.e. different durations, and each has a determined high sampling rate, as opposed to the low rate intervals; and see paragraph 0043: CPU implements operations, has subsystem/software to implement the dynamic determinations).
Regarding claim 15, Takemura discloses dynamically determining, using a variable settings subsystem, the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0056: dynamically determines high-rate recording interval windows based on dynamically determined triggers, each one with a different start time, i.e. pre-trigger start, different time along the x-axis, i.e. different durations, and each has a determined high sampling rate, as opposed to the low rate intervals; and see paragraph 0043: CPU implements operations, has subsystem/software to implement the dynamic determinations).
Regarding claim 8, Takemura discloses wherein the variable settings subsystem is further configured to dynamically determine the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate based on a value of a digital quantity related to the event (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0056: dynamically determines high-rate recording interval windows based on dynamically determined triggers, each one with a different start time, i.e. pre-trigger start, different time along the x-axis, i.e. different durations, and each has a determined high sampling rate, as opposed to the low rate intervals; and see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0043: CPU implements operations, has subsystem/software to implement the dynamic determinations, measured voltage and current are input into CPU after A/D conversion, i.e. current and voltage values are digital qualities).
Regarding claim 19, Takemura discloses dynamically determining, using variable settings subsystem, the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate based on a value of digital quantity related to the event (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0056: dynamically determines high-rate recording interval windows based on dynamically determined triggers, each one with a different start time, i.e. pre-trigger start, different time along the x-axis, i.e. different durations, and each has a determined high sampling rate, as opposed to the low rate intervals; and see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0043: CPU implements operations, has subsystem/software to implement the dynamic determinations, measured voltage and current are input into CPU after A/D conversion, i.e. current and voltage values are digital qualities).
Regarding claim 11, Takemura discloses wherein the power system response subsystem further comprises a protective action subsystem configured to generate a protective action in response to the trigger signal (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0038, and claim 1: trips a circuit breaker in response to fault event).
Regarding claim 22, Takemura discloses implementing a protective action based on identification of the event (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0038, and claim 1: trips a circuit breaker in response to fault event).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura (US 20190049490) in view of Matamoros (US 20170108909).
Regarding claims 2, Takemura further disclose wherein the adaptive event report subsystem is configured to receive user input comprising the pre-trigger start and the duration (see paragraphs 0036 and 0047: user can set values for Tc, i.e. pre-trigger start, and Td, i.e. the duration).
Takemura does not expressly disclose receiving user input comprising the sampling rate.
Matamoros discloses receiving user input comprising the sampling rate (see paragraphs 0057-0058: computer implements method 600, sampling rate in method may be adjustable by a user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Matamoros, i.e. using a user adjustable sampling rate, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a user to adjust the sapling rate so the system will generate reports corresponding to their personalized sampling rate.
Regarding claims 13, Takemura further disclose receiving, using the adaptive event report subsystem, user input comprising the pre-trigger start and the duration (see paragraphs 0036 and 0047: user can set values for Tc, i.e. pre-trigger start, and Td, i.e. the duration).
Takemura does not expressly disclose receiving user input comprising the sampling rate.
Matamoros discloses receiving user input comprising the sampling rate (see paragraphs 0057-0058: computer implements method 600, sampling rate in method may be adjustable by a user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Matamoros, i.e. using a user adjustable sampling rate, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a user to adjust the sapling rate so the system will generate reports corresponding to their personalized sampling rate.
Regarding claims 3, Takemura further disclose a fixed settings subsystem to receive and store the pre-trigger start and the duration (see paragraphs 0036 and 0047: user can set values for Tc, i.e. pre-trigger start, and Td, i.e. the duration, CPU contains software capable of receiving user parameter, i.e. fixed subsystem software, and must have stored the parameters in memory to utilize the parameter in the disclosed algorithm).
Takemura does not expressly disclose receiving and storing the sampling rate.
Matamoros discloses receiving and storing user input comprising the sampling rate (see paragraphs 0057-0058: computer implements method 600, sampling rate in method may be adjustable by a user, computer must have stored sampling rate to implement the user set sampling rate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Matamoros, i.e. using a user adjustable sampling rate, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a user to adjust the sapling rate so the system will generate reports corresponding to their personalized sampling rate.
Regarding claims 14, Takemura further disclose receiving and storing, using a fixed settings subsystem, the pre-trigger start and the duration (see paragraphs 0036 and 0047: user can set values for Tc, i.e. pre-trigger start, and Td, i.e. the duration, CPU contains software capable of receiving user parameter, i.e. fixed subsystem software, and must have stored the parameters in memory to utilize the parameter in the disclosed algorithm).
Takemura does not expressly disclose receiving and storing the sampling rate.
Matamoros discloses receiving and storing user input comprising the sampling rate (see paragraphs 0057-0058: computer implements method 600, sampling rate in method may be adjustable by a user, computer must have stored sampling rate to implement the user set sampling rate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Matamoros, i.e. using a user adjustable sampling rate, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a user to adjust the sapling rate so the system will generate reports corresponding to their personalized sampling rate.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura (US 20190049490) in view of Strang (Considerations for Use Of Disturbance Recorders).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Takemura discloses wherein the variable settings subsystem is further configured to dynamically determine the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate based on a change of the at least one electrical parameter related to the event, wherein the variable settings subsystem is further configured to dynamically determine the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate based on a change of the at least one electrical parameter related to the event without user intervention (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0046 and 0056: dynamically determines high-rate recording interval windows based on dynamically determined triggers, i.e. detected change in the at least one electrical parameter, each one with a different start time, i.e. pre-trigger start, different time along the x-axis, i.e. different durations, and each has a determined high sampling rate, as opposed to the low rate intervals; and see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0043: CPU implements operations, has subsystem/software to implement the dynamic determinations, measured voltage and current are input into CPU after A/D conversion, i.e. current and voltage values are digital qualities).
Takemura does not expressly disclose wherein the change, i.e. trigger, is based on a rate of change.
Strang discloses a trigging method wherein the trigger in relation to a change in an electrical parameter is a rate-of-change (see page 22 last paragraph: trigger based on rate-of-change in a measured value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Strang, i.e. using a rate-of-change trigger to initiate recording of events, for the advantageous benefit of using conventional triggers for identifying known transient events of interest.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Takemura further discloses dynamically determining, using the variable settings subsystem, the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate based on a change of the at least one electrical parameter related to the event, further comprising dynamically determining, using the variable settings subsystem, the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate based on a change of the at least one electrical parameter related to the event without user intervention (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0046 and 0056: dynamically determines high-rate recording interval windows based on dynamically determined triggers, i.e. detected change in the at least one electrical parameter, each one with a different start time, i.e. pre-trigger start, different time along the x-axis, i.e. different durations, and each has a determined high sampling rate, as opposed to the low rate intervals; and see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0043: CPU implements operations, has subsystem/software to implement the dynamic determinations, measured voltage and current are input into CPU after A/D conversion, i.e. current and voltage values are digital qualities).
Takemura does not expressly disclose wherein the change, i.e. trigger, is based on a rate of change.
Strang discloses a trigging method wherein the trigger in relation to a change in an electrical parameter is a rate-of-change (see page 22 last paragraph: trigger based on rate-of-change in a measured value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Strang, i.e. using a rate-of-change trigger to initiate recording of events, for the advantageous benefit of using conventional triggers for identifying known transient events of interest.
Regarding claim 7, Takemura does not expressly disclose wherein the variable settings subsystem is further configured to establish a minimum value and a maximum value for at least one of the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate.
Strang discloses wherein a device for recoding fault records with configurable variables, i.e. variable settings subsystem, is further configured to establish a minimum value and a maximum value for at least one of the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate (see page 24 last paragraph to page 25 first paragraph and Fig. 8: discloses a maximum record length setting, i.e. a maximum duration setting).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Strang, i.e. allowing a user to establish a maximum record length, for the advantageous benefit of limiting the amount of memory allocated to individual records.
Regarding claim 18, Takemura does not expressly disclose establishing, using the variable settings subsystem, a minimum value and a maximum value for at least one of the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate.
Strang discloses a device for recoding fault records and establishing, using the variable settings subsystem, a minimum value and a maximum value for at least one of the pre-trigger start, the duration, and the sampling rate (see page 24 last paragraph to page 25 first paragraph and Fig. 8: discloses a maximum record length setting, i.e. a maximum duration setting).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Strang, i.e. allowing a user to establish a maximum record length, for the advantageous benefit of limiting the amount of memory allocated to individual records.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura (US 20190049490) in view of Bryson (US 20150035681).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Takemura does not expressly disclose wherein the adaptive protective relay event report comprises a priority designation.
Bryson discloses wherein the adaptive protective relay event report comprises a priority designation (see paragraphs 0013 and 0042: priority for detected events; and see paragraph 0028: event includes relay events, including faults).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Bryson, using priority designations, for the advantageous benefit of drawing attention and prioritizing collection and review of the fault events of Takemura.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura (US 20190049490) in view of Qin (US 20070150214).
Regarding claim 10, Takemura does not expressly disclose wherein the adaptive event report subsystem is further configured to terminate the adaptive protective relay event report prior to the duration based on a dropout of the measure of at least one electrical parameter.
Qin discloses an intelligent electric device that processes an electrical parameter, wherein a subsystem is configured to terminate processing of a signal based on a dropout of the measure of at least one electrical parameter (see paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Qin, terminating the processing of a signal based on a dropout of the signal, for the advantageous benefit of ending the signal processing due to an unstable input signal. Once modified, i.e. terminating the signal processing of the adaptive event report due to a dropout of the signal, the modification makes obvious an adaptive event report subsystem that is further configured to terminate the adaptive protective relay event report prior to the duration based on a dropout of the measure of at least one electrical parameter.
Regarding claim 21, Takemura does not expressly disclose terminating, using the adaptive event report subsystem, the adaptive protective relay event report prior to the duration based on a dropout of the at least one electrical parameter.
Qin discloses an intelligent electric device with a method of processing an electrical parameter that includes terminating, using a subsystem, the processing of a signal based on a dropout of the measure of at least one electrical parameter (see paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takemura with the teachings of Qin, terminating the processing of a signal based on a dropout of the signal, for the advantageous benefit of ending the signal processing due to an unstable input signal. Once modified, i.e. terminating the signal processing of the adaptive event report due to a dropout of the signal, the modification makes obvious terminating, using the adaptive event report subsystem, the adaptive protective relay event report prior to the duration based on a dropout of the at least one electrical parameter.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang (US 12073665) discloses and event recording system that determines capture windows based on the type of trigger event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857