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 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 1-2, 4-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is an apparatus claim. Likewise, claims 8 and 12 are method claims.
Under step 2A, prong 1: claims 1, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships”) which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 12 are directed to the abstract idea of generate signal data for estimation by a deep learning inference model by signal-processing a current signal detected by a current transformer; and estimate whether an arc-fault occurs based on the deep learning inference model through the signal data generated by the signal processing unit. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts or mental processes (i.e. estimating). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a signal processing unit, a current transformer and an inference unit; which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to estimate an arc fault occurrence. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships”) which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea of preprocessing, by an inference unit, signal data of a signal processing unit into time series data in a time domain and data in a frequency domain; extracting, by the inference unit, each of signal features in the time domain and signal features in the frequency domain from the time series data in the time domain and the data in the frequency domain based on a deep learning model; and determining, by the inference unit, whether a current signal is a normal signal or an arc-fault signal by fusing the signal features in the time domain and the signal features in the frequency domain. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a signal processing unit and an inference unit; which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to estimate an arc fault occurrence. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The data processing is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “estimate whether an arc-fault occurs based on the deep learning inference model through the signal data generated by the signal processing unit” and “whether a current signal is a normal signal or an arc-fault signal by fusing the signal features in the time domain”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed apparatus/method. For instance, nothing is done with the estimated arc-fault or determined current signal.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps and structure of claims 1, 8 and 12 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3 and 14 recite limitations which are considered significantly more. These limitations are adjusting amplification according to a control signal from the inference unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 102284958 B1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Lee discloses a series arc-fault detection apparatus/method comprising:
a signal processing unit configured to generate signal data for estimation by a deep learning inference model by signal-processing a current signal detected by a current transformer (see para. 0010, 0035); and
an inference unit configured to estimate whether an arc-fault (i.e. partial discharge) occurs based on the deep learning inference model through the signal data generated by the signal processing unit (see para. 0010).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857