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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 1 states "A computer readable storage media". grammar, "A" indicates that the following element is singular, but "media" is plural. It should be "A computer readable storage medium ...".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 1 in page 1 l recites the limitation "the temperature of the current terminals comprises defining a reasonableness interval for measurement temperatures of the current terminals, wherein when a measured temperature Tc-i of a current terminal i is within a reasonableness threshold interval". It is unclear how these two intervals are different.
Claim 1 in page 1 lines 21-22 recites the limitation "theoretical temperature calibration of the current terminals is performed". It is unclear how the calibration is performed; system would need both measured values and theoretical values, and then the system would be adjusted until the measured values match the theoretical values. It is unclear how the theoretical values are calculated and how the system is to be calibrated (what adjustments are made to the system).
Claim 1 in page 1 l recites the limitation "comprising calculating the theoretical temperature Tl-i of the current terminal i based on a secondary current iⅡ uploaded to the secondary intelligent operation-and-maintenance control platform by a power grid relay protection and fault information system". It is unclear how a “secondary current” can be “uploaded to … information system”. Additionally, it is unclear how “secondary current” is created, applied to the current terminal, and measured.
Claim 1 in page 2 l recites the limitation "wherein when 0≤k1≤5%, the data of the measurement temperature of the current terminal uploaded to the secondary intelligent operation-and-maintenance control platform is confirmed to be correct data, and it is to confirm that measurement data is without any errors in intermediate links of transmission and is available for determination of an abnormal temperature of a current terminal;". It is unclear how the data can have an error rate of
0
≤
k
1
≤
5
%
(zero to five percent) and yet “measurement data is without any errors in intermediate links of transmission”; claim seems to be saying both that there may be as much as 5 percent error while at the same time saying that there is no error.
Claim 1 in page 2 lines 8-10 recites the limitation "wherein the real-time temperature distribution information is collected through an online temperature measurement imager processing collection to the temperature distribution information of all the current terminals of the terminal box;". It is unclear how “information is collected through … an collection”; “real-time” information would be collected through a sensor/detector and a “collection” (interpreted as collected data) would have been collected from a sensor and stored in a memory.
Claim 1 in page 2 line 23 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is unclear because; Nusselt number Nu0 is unitless, air thermal conductivity λf has units of watts/(meter*kelvin) and therefore the right side of the equation appears to have units of watts per meter while the left side has units of watts.
Claim 1 in page 2 lines 24 & 33 (respectively) recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image2.png
28
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image3.png
27
210
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. That the ‘D’ is in an equation means it must be a numerical value (potentially with units), but it is not clear where the value is obtained from nor how “D represents a secondary loop path” implies a numerical value.
Claim 1 in page 4 lines 14-18 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image4.png
175
582
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, the standard deviation is typically defined as:
PNG
media_image5.png
93
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As such, applied to the instant application the Applicant’s expression should have a ‘3’ instead of a ‘2’ in the denominator.
Claim 1 in page 5 lines 9-13 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image6.png
164
589
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, the left side of the equation has Tc-i(t) while the right side of the equation has the same Tc-i(t) but divided by Δt; the units on either side of the equation do not match (temperature vs temperature per time).
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims.”:
Claim 1 in lines 6-7 recites the limitation "the secondary intelligent operation-and-maintenance control platform". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 in line 21 recites the limitation "wherein if the initially confirming is to be reasonable data,". It is not clear what “the initially confirming” is, and this element is not found previously within the claim. For the purposes of examination this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein if the data has been determined to be within the reasonableness interval’.
Claims 2-4 in lines 2, 4, & 3-4 (respectively) recites the limitation "based on thermal imaging according to claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation(s) using “based on” and not referring to the parent claim as a whole, under the broadest reasonable interpretation could mean that the dependent claims are not intended to inherit the parent claim in totality. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for ‘according to the method for online monitoring of temperature in current terminal blocks based on thermal imaging’.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Otherwise, the claim would likely raise 35 U.S.C § 112(b) antecedent basis issues.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of a parent claim which was rejected under 35 USC 112(b)’:
Claims 2-4 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a base claim (claim 1) without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image7.png
930
645
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
681
881
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams form MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for online monitoring of temperature in current terminal blocks based on thermal imaging,” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
PNG
media_image9.png
503
586
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
853
598
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
853
588
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
861
593
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
839
597
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept”
Analysis:
The claim claims equations or the use of equations, and the “determining …” is directed towards the use of equations on collected data. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation these limitations are directed towards either the abstract idea grouping of ‘mathematical concepts’ or the abstract idea grouping of ‘mental processes’.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites “an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon”
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of:
“obtaining real-time temperature distribution information of current terminals of a terminal box;”
“using an external communication substation to upload the obtained real-time temperature distribution information to the secondary intelligent operation-and-maintenance control platform;”
“determining whether there is an abnormality in temperature of the current terminals, if there is an abnormality, issuing an alarm message for the potential hidden danger for an open circuit of a current secondary circuit.”
Are extra-solution activity.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.”
Analysis:
The “Obtaining real-time temperature distribution information” is data gathering (pre-solution activity) which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
The “upload the obtained real-time temperature distribution information” is data gathering (pre-solution activity) which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
The “determining whether there is an abnormality in temperature” & ”issuing an alarm message” is applying the judicial exception(s) (post-solution activity) which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The additional element(s)/limitation(s) as listed in Revised Step 2A Prong Two are well known conventional subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III): “EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS IN MAKING A § 101 REJECTION” & “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”
Analysis:
1)
US 20220148799 A1 “Alert System For Transformer” (Tsai) see Fig. 1-3: “thermographic camera” & Fig. 1-9: “transformer” & Fig. 1-5: “alert device”
2)
US 11644492 B2 “Electricity Meter Thermal Performance Monitoring” (Davis) see Fig. 3: “shows an exemplary thermal performance plot” & column 8 lines 12-15: “Thereby, a machine learning monitoring logic is implemented, which runs in parallel to the primary logic that triggers warnings when the model output errors exceed certain thresholds.”
Conclusion:
Therefore the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A system for adopting the method of online monitoring of temperature in current terminal blocks based on thermal imaging according to claim 1,” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
PNG
media_image14.png
139
589
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Explanation:
To “identify temperature distribution information …” is either a mental process or a mathematical concept.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
PNG
media_image15.png
355
581
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.”
Analysis:
The multiple references to “module” are no more than indicative that the invention is directed towards application of the judicial exception(s) in a computing environment.
Recitation of the “thermal imager” does no more than link the invention to a field of use corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01J 5/00: “Radiation pyrometry, e.g. infrared or optical thermometry”
Conclusion:
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional element(s) beyond those addressed in revised step 2A. As these elements are field of use limitations, whether the claim involves an ‘inventive concept’ is not evaluated.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A computer device comprising a memory and a processor,” which is a device and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
PNG
media_image16.png
114
584
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Explanation:“Online monitoring of temperature” is no more than applying the judicial exception(s) of claim 1 in a computer environment.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
No;
The claim is directed towards “A computer readable storage media,” which at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation could be a transitory signal.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03(I): “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
• Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave”
Analysis:
The limitation(s) are broad enough such that they could be considered to be directed towards a transitory signal, which is not within one of the four patentable categories.
Conclusion:
The claim is not to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Note:
A “non-transitory computer readable medium’ would be a device which would be within one of the four statutory categories.
However, “processor” is not significantly more than indicating that the inventive concept involves the field of use of computers.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL “Real-Time Condition Monitoring of Substation Equipment Using Thermal Cameras.” (Pal) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 2, & 4-5.
NPL “Estimation of Power Losses in a High-Frequency Planar Transformer Using a Thermal Camera.” (Barlik) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
NPL “Component-Wise Power Estimation of Electrical Devices Using Thermal Imaging.” (Herglotz) is relevant to the Applican'ts disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 4.
US 9689746 B2 "Method And System Of Measuring Surface Temperature" (Yamada) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 20220148799 A1 "Alert System For Transformer" (Tsai) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 4.
US 11740279 B2 "Measuring Temperature-modulated Properties Of A Test Sample" (Petersen) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 7.
US 11644492 B2 "Electricity Meter Thermal Performance Monitoring" (Davis) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858