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
Amendments filed 05/09/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, & 3-4 remain pending. Claims 1, & 4 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page 10 lines 12-13, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment first page 1 lines 14-20, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections -35 USC §112 and claims 1-4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
“In response, Applicant submits that claim 1 is amended in accordance with the issues raised by the Examiner, such issues are thus overcome.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
35 USC §112(b) issues remain, see 112(b) section below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment first page 1 line 21 to 4th page 1 line 6, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections -35 USC §101 and claims 1-4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (first page 1 line 24-26):
“First, the claimed subject matter is directed to a specific technical solution for online temperature monitoring of current terminals in a substation, which solves the technical problem of detecting potential open circuits in CT secondary circuits”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The judicial exceptions are specific but they are still judicial exceptions. The physical elements are broadly recited and not significantly more than either extra solution activity or field of art limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment first page 1 line 21 to 4th page 1 line 6, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections -35 USC §101 and claims 1-4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (first page 1 line 27 to second page 1 line 4):
“Second, all steps are performed by dedicated physical hardware, including a thermal imaging sensor, an external communication substation, a protection and fault information system substation, and a secondary intelligent operation and maintenance platform. These hardware have communication transmission among there.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Some of the physical elements are necessarily implied by the judicial exception; for example, a judicial exception which uses radiated power must have something which could be called a “thermal imaging sensor”. When an element is implied by the judicial exception it is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
The other elements (such as “communication substation”, “fault information system”, “(O&M) platform”, etc.) are not significantly more than generic computing elements for performing the judicial exception(s) (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. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” & MPEP 2106(I): “The programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)"); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer").”).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment first page 1 line 21 to 4th page 1 line 6, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections -35 USC §101 and claims 1-4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (third page 1 lines 10 -14):
“Each step provides a technical effect: collecting real-time physical temperature signals, verifying data validity, filtering interferences, performing self-calibration based on the actual load current, and issuing an alarm for sampling abnormality. Each step produces a specific technical effect and the solution as a whole is significantly more than an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation such functionality is either necessary extra solution activity necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s) (such as “temperature signals”) or generic computing functionality for implementing the judicial exception(s) (such as “filtering”, “self-calibration”). At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim(s) are not significantly more than ‘thermal sensor and computations on data from the thermal sensor’; there is not significant information about a specific device.
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, 3-4 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 lines 16-18 recites the limitation "judging whether a measured temperature T,; of a current terminal i is within a threshold interval according to the processed temperature distribution information; if yes, confirming that the measured temperature Tr; of the current terminal i is valid;". It is unclear how the “confirming” is done.
Claim 1 in page 1 lines 23-24 recites the limitation "after confirming that the measured temperature T,_ of the current terminal i is valid, performing theoretical temperature calibration on the current terminal i". 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). It is unclear what a “theoretical temperature calibration” is; a calibration is an in practice (i.e. not theoretical) adjustment of outputs from a sensor to match known input output relations.
Claim 1 in page 1 lines 25-29 recites the limitation "calculating an error rate ki between the measured temperature Te_ and the theoretical temperature T,; of the current terminal i; when 0krc5%, confirming that the measured temperature T.; has no error during transmission; if ki >5%, confirming that the measured temperature T, has an error during transmission". 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. Additionally, all measurements have some amount of error or error rate.
Claim 1 in page 1 lines 11-13 recites the limitation "the protection and fault information system substation collecting a secondary current it of a current transformer and uploading the secondary current ir to the secondary intelligent operation and maintenance control platform". 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 4 lines 3-5 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.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims.”:
Claim 1 in lines 6-7 recites the limitation "the reasonableness interval for the measurement temperature of the current terminal is expressed as:". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As of the amendments filed 05/09/2026, this is the first instance of “reasonableness interval”.
Claims 3, & 4 in lines 4, & 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’. “based on” could mean that it does not inherit the limitations of claim 1 but just that there is some material from claim 1. Elements and limitations in claim [x] may or may not be considered to be part of a claim which states “based on claim [x]”.
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.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of a parent claim which was rejected under 35 USC 112(b)’:
Claims 3-4 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_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams form MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1, & 3-4 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_image3.png
538
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
149
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
628
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
685
669
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
733
657
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
699
668
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
748
662
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
730
655
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
266
676
media_image11.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:
“the thermal imaging sensor collecting real-time temperature distribution information of all current terminals i in a terminal box;”
“the external communication substation obtaining the temperature distribution information from the thermal imaging sensor, processing the obtained temperature distribution information, and uploading the processed temperature distribution information to the secondary intelligent operation and maintenance control platform;”
“the protection and fault information system substation collecting a secondary current it of a current transformer and uploading the secondary current ir to the secondary intelligent operation and maintenance control platform”
“issuing an alarm for abnormal sampling of the thermal imaging sensor;”
Are extra-solution activity.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”
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 “collecting real-time temperature distribution information” is data gathering (pre-solution activity) which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
The “uploading the processed temperature distribution information” is data gathering (pre-solution activity) which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s).
The ”issuing an alarm” is applying the judicial exception(s) (post-solution activity) which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). There would be no purpose to the judicial exception without issuing an alarm.
Any recited physical hardware devices or elements are broadly recited and no more than what would be necessarily implied by the judicial exceptions or are field of art limitations pertaining to at least CPC symbol G01J 5/90 .Testing, inspecting or checking operation of radiation pyrometers). Such as “thermal imaging sensor”.
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 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."
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 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.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 3 additionally recites:
PNG
media_image12.png
131
652
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Explanation:“Online monitoring of temperature” is no more than applying the judicial exception(s) of claim 1 in a computer environment.
The additional elements of:
“memory”, & “processor” are not significantly more than generic computer elements for performing the judicial exception(s).
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 beyond those in step 2A Prong Two.
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?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” 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.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 4 additionally recites:
PNG
media_image13.png
141
664
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Explanation:“Online monitoring of temperature” is no more than applying the judicial exception(s) of claim 1 in a computer environment.
The additional elements of:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium”, “processor” are not significantly more than generic computer elements for performing the judicial exception(s).
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 beyond those in step 2A Prong Two.
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.
US 11761821 B2 “System And Method For Thermal Imaging” (Wingert) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see FIG. 2: “schematic cross-sectional view of a portion of the system”.
US 20190154510 A1 “Method For Determining A Temperature Without Contact And Infrared Measuring System” (Frank) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 2
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights