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 § 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. Claim s 1-10 are 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 2 discloses “comprising a measurement.” It is unclear if the measurement is merely acquired or if an actual measurement is taken. For the purposes of the present examination, the measurement is construed as acquired. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "by said meter" in line 3 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “by said battery-powered smart meter” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "by the meter" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “by the battery-powered smart meter” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "this measurement" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the measurement” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "said database" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “said signature database” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "of the meter" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “of the battery-powered smart meter” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sequence of functionalities" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “a sequence of functionalities” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 12 discloses “an identification of at least one functionality.” It is unclear if “an identification of at least one functionality” is the same “an identification of at least one functionality” of claim 1, line 5. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drift" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the possible drift” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 8 discloses “implementation of a functionality by said meter.” It is unclear if claim 1, line 8 discloses the same functionality as claim 1, line 5 disclosing “an identification of at least one functionality.” For the purposes of the present examination, “during the implementation of the at least one functionality” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 10 discloses “the sequence of functionalities.” Claim 1, line 5 discloses “at least one functionality.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of at least one functionality comprises only one functionality. It is unclear how a single functionality may be identified, and then a sequence of functionalities may be identified from that single functionality. For the purposes of the present examination, two or more functionalities are required. However, further clarification is required. Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 2, line 1 discloses “a drift.” It is unclear if “a drift” is the same “a possible drift” of claim 1, line 11. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 3, line 2 discloses “the functionality/functionalities.” It is unclear if the forward-slash represents and, or, or and/or, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of the present examination, “and/or” is construed, however, further clarification is required. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 3, lines 3-4 disclose “this/these functionality/functionalities.” This is construed as an antecedent basis error, wherein “the functionality and/or functionalities” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the drift" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the possible drift” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 4, line 2 discloses “drift.” It is unclear if “drift” is the same “a possible drift” of claim 1, line 11. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the meter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the battery-powered smart meter” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the smart meter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the battery-powered smart meter” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the smart meter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the battery-powered smart meter” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 9, line 2 discloses “of a smart meter.” It is unclear if “a smart meter” is the same “battery-powered smart meter” of claim 1, line 2. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the meter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, “the battery-powered smart meter” is construed. However, further clarification is required. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 10, line 2 discloses “according to the preceding claim.” It is unclear which preceding claim that claim 10 is purported to depend. For the purpose s of the present examination, claim 10 is construed to depend from claim 1. However, further clarification 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows: Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter. Step 2A: This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold : A method for supervising the electrical consumption of a battery-powered smart meter, comprising a measurement relating to the electrical current consumed by said meter , characterized in that it comprises: an identification of at least one functionality implemented by the meter by comparison of data relating to this measurement that are measured with signatures stored in a signature database , each signature of said database being representative of the consumption of the meter during the implementation of a functionality by said meter in a nominal operating mode of the meter ; a monitoring over time of the sequence of functionalities thus identified and the detection of a possible drift relative to a nominal operation, an identification of at least one functionality implemented by the meter responsible for the drift. has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses a measurement relating to the electrical current consumed; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; characterized in that it comprises: an identification of at least one functionality implemented by comparison of data relating to this measurement that are measured with signatures, each signature being representative of the consumption during the implementation of a functionality in a nominal operating mode; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., observation; a monitoring over time of the sequence of functionalities thus identified and the detection of a possible drift relative to a nominal operation; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., observation . The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f). In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites: stored in a signature database, of said database Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) . an identification of at least one functionality implemented by the meter responsible for the drift. Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II. by said meter, by the meter of the meter by said meter of the meter; Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link 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.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). Step 2B: In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) . The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represent s insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents 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.” Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-10 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent 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 non-statutory subject matter. 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.03.I. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.03.I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim s 1-10 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drachmann (WO 2021/110224 A1), hereinafter Drachmann, in view of Rico Alvarino et al. (US 2020/0350949 A1), hereinafter Rico Alvarino . Regarding claim 1, Drachmann discloses A method for supervising the electrical consumption of a battery-powered smart meter, comprising a measurement relating to the electrical current consumed by said meter, ( Drachmann , e.g., see para. [0088] disclosing controlling said average power consumption of said consumption meter is based on an estimated average power consumption based on measurements of current and/or voltage). characterized in that it comprises: an identification of at least one functionality implemented by the meter by comparison of data relating to this measurement that are measured with signatures stored in a signature database, each signature of said database being representative of the consumption of the meter during the implementation of a functionality by said meter in a nominal operating mode of the meter; ( Drachmann , e.g., see fig. 1 and para. [016 0 ] disclosing four water consumption meters with separate distances and topographies to a concentrator, wherein the transmitted data may include meter reading, timestamp, status information, etc. Four power consumption signals, “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D ; ” construed as signatures which are stored in the data collector/database, relating to the required transmission power ; construed as at least one functionality which is compared to the consumption signals , required to communicate with the concentrator; see also fig. 2 para. [0168] disclosing in order to coordinate the consumption meters (CM) to target the same average power consumption (PA), the data collector (DC); construed as a database, decides on a common reference power consumption (PREF) ; con strued as a comparison of data, which is transmitted to all the consumption meters (CM). In this example, the data collector (DC), or a backend system controller the data collector, has decided that an appropriate power consumption level (PREF) to target throughout the meter reading system, would be level “B” as illustrated ; construed as a nominal operating mode of the meter. Based on this, all consumption meters have managed to achieve the reference power consumption PREF for their individual average power consumption (PA) by means of the present invention ) . a monitoring over time of the sequence of functionalities thus identified and the detection of a possible increase relative to a nominal operation, ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig s . 5 -6 and paras. [0188]-[0190] disclosing different scenarios of power consumption, wherein fig. 5 illustrates a diagram of the instantaneous power (P) of a consumption meter (CM) over time (t), and wherein fig. 6 illustrates the situation of another consumption meter (CM) located at a longer distance from the data collector (DC). Fig. 5 is a simplified example, wherein the average power consumption (PA), indicated by a dashed line, is determined based on the basis of the power consumption during the entire life or a time window. Fig. 6 takes into account transmission quality parameters (TQL) for adjustment to achieve the wireless communication (WLC) of the communication power level (Pc) to be increased, apparent by the higher pulses compared to fig. 5. In order to maintain the same average power consumption (PA) as the consumption meter of fig. 5, the consumption meter (CM) is adjusting its information quantity parameters (IQN) to transmit only at a double transmission interval compared to fig. 5 ; see also para. [0041] disclosing nominal battery lifetime and nominal battery capacity ). an identification of at least one functionality implemented by the meter responsible for the increase . ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied above, wherein the at least one functionality comprises a power consumption related to a wireless communication, wherein the wireless communication is implemented only at a double transmission interval). Drachmann may be relied upon as disclosing a change in power level, but is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a drift . However, Rico Alvarino further discloses a drift ( Rico Alvarino , e.g., see para. [0 223 ] disclosing a transmission power with which the UE (115-b) [user equipment] and/or the base station (105-b) may transmit communications may gradually change or drift from a target transmission power to successfully communicate uplink and downlink transmissions ). Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Drachmann with Rico Alvarino’s drift for at least the reasons that it is known to increase resolution for configuring power control commands, wherein the power control commands may allow the base station to indicate relatively larger power adjustments and/or allow the base station to indicate power adjustments with increased granularity, as taught by Rico Alvarino ; e.g., see para. [0224]. Regarding claim 2, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the detection of a drift generates the emission of an alert signal and/or corrective actions. ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0196] disclosing when the wireless communication (WLC) experiences trouble; e.g., as a change to the environment, line of sight to the data collector, or changes to the data collector (DC) or its environment, the method goes back to the step of adjusting transmission quality parameters (TQL), in order to solve the communication problems; construed as a corrective action ) . Regarding claim 3, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing The method according to claim 2, wherein a corrective action comprises a slowing of the functionality/functionalities responsible for the drift or a reduction in a maximum current intensity allocated to this/these functionality/functionalities. ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically to figs. 5-6 disclosing an adjustment to a transmission rate that is slowed). Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing stopping of the functionality. However, Rico Alvarino further discloses: stopping of the functionality. ( Rico Alvarino , e.g., see para. [0382] disclosing the UE may disable or change a configuration for one or more components such that the UE may consume a relatively lower amount of power). Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino’s method with Rico Alvarino’s stopping of the functionality for at least the reasons that stopping transmission would necessarily conserve power, leading to the benefit of longer battery life. Regarding claim 4, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one given functionality is kept including in case of drift, so as to guarantee that the meter is kept in operation. ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, wherein the measurements of the wireless transmissions are provided in fig. 5 are stored for comparison with the measurements of the wireless transmissions of fig. 6 such that the meter may continue to transmit; see also para. [0045] disclosing measuring interval may refer to the frequency of making measurements and thereby the number of readings that is made and stored and possibly transmitted). Regarding claim 5, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising an estimation of a remaining service life of the battery based on the measured data. ( Drachmann , e.g. see paras. [0073]-[0074] disclosing said consumption meter is arranged to estimate a remaining battery lifetime of said battery as an estimated remaining battery capacity of said battery divided by said average power consumption ; see also para. [0180] disclosing provided the consumption meter on average consumes the reference power, then the battery lifetime ideally will be the remaining battery capacity divided by the reference power consumption (PREF); construed as an estimation ) . Regarding claim 6, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses The method according to claim 1, the functionalities of the smart meter comprising one or several functionalities chosen among: radio transmissions ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1 to wireless communication (WLC) of data packages (DP)). operations performed by a microcontroller metrology operations low-consumption Bluetooth transmissions. Regarding claim 7, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising a detection of electrical overconsumption and/or electrical underconsumption by the smart meter. ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically to figs. 5-6 illustrating an increased amplitude of power being consumed which results in reduction in wireless communication transmission frequency to conserve power, which is necessarily an electrical overconsumption). Regarding claim 8, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses A computer program product implementing the supervision method according to claim 1. ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0083] disclosing bidirectional communication allows the collector or other unit, e.g., a backend system, in the meter reading system to upload updated configurations, firmware; construed as a computer program product, etc. to the consumption meter). Regarding claim 9, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses A system for supervising the electrical consumption of a smart meter, the supervision system operating thanks to application software distinct from application software of the meter, the supervision system comprising a microprocessor a dapted to implement the method according to claim 1. ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also fig. 3 illustrating a consumption meter (CM); see also paras. [0171]-[0174] disclosing the (CM) is mounted on or in connection with a fluid pipe system (FPS), carrying a fluid, arranged to measure a value (MV) related to this fluid, and also comprising a measuring unit (MU), a processor (P), a memory (M), a battery (B), a display (D), an antenna (A), and is configured to establish a wireless communication (WLC); construed as a supervision system ; see also para. [0169] disclosing the use of a Data Collector/backend system which makes determinations distinct from the meter itself; e.g., uploading updated configurations, firmware, etc. to the consumption meters ). Regarding claim 10, Drachmann in view of Rico Alvarino discloses A battery-powered smart meter, comprising a supervision system according to the preceding claim. ( Drachmann , e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also fig. 3 illustrating a consumption meter (CM); see also paras. [0171]-[0174] disclosing the (CM) is mounted on or in connection with a fluid pipe system (FPS), carrying a fluid, arranged to measure a value (MV) related to this fluid, and also comprising a measuring unit (MU), a processor (P), a memory (M), a battery (B), a display (D), an antenna (A), and is configured to establish a wireless communication (WLC); construed as a supervision system). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 9,207,270 B2 to Caldeira et al. relates to a method and apparatus for measuring megawatt usage of an appliance.. US 2022/0393457 A1 to Olander et al. relates to systems and methods for utilizing electricity monitoring devices to mitigate or prevent structural damage. US 2022/0196715 A1 to Routu et al. relates to an electric energy meter with on-board power quality analytics. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Catherine Rastovski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712700349 . 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. /E.S.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857