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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 19-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/31/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 31 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 recites “at least one of amplitude, phase offset and y-offset” which should have a comma after phase offset to read as “at least one of amplitude, phase offset, and y-offset”.
Claim 31 recites “time-series resistance data, time-series voltage data or time-series current data” which should have a comma after time-series voltage data to read as “time-series resistance data, time-series voltage data, or time-series current data”.
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 16, 18, and 29-31 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 judicial exception 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 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 the statutory class of a process.
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 limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method for determining alarm thresholds, the method comprising:
obtaining data at one or more rectifiers over a period of time;
fitting the data with a fitting procedure to obtain fit parameters;
classifying the one or more rectifiers based on the fit parameters; and
generating alarm thresholds based on the determined classification.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mathematical concept and mental process, namely a calculation to determine fit parameters, decision to classify rectifiers, and a decision to make alarm thresholds based on the classification.
The additional limitation of “one or more rectifiers” are generic products and does not implement the steps of the method, as such the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitation of “obtaining data” is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, required to implement the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does 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 affect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. 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.
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, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims 18 and 29-31 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 18 adds the recited “inputting the fit parameters into a classification logic” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 29 adds the recited “fit parameters include at least one of amplitude, phase offset and y-offset” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 30 adds the recited “fitting procedure is a cosine function or a sine function” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 31 additionally recites “time-series resistance data, time-series voltage data or time-series current data” which only determines what type of data is used in the fitting procedure, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 18 and 29-31 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
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 16, 18, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan (CN 108828345 B) in view of Xu (CN 109374997 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Guan teaches a method for determining alarm thresholds, the method comprising:
obtaining data at one or more rectifiers over a period of time (Para 48: “collect multiple first current values within a preset time period in the power line to be tested”);
fitting the data with a fitting procedure to obtain fit parameters (Para 22: “obtain the slope of multiple sampling points corresponding to the multiple second current values on the current curve”);
classifying the one or more rectifiers based on the fit parameters (Para 12: “If it is determined that the current curve of the power line under test is not a sine curve within the preset time period, then it is determined that a thyristor load is connected to the power line under test”).
Guan does not explicitly teach generating alarm thresholds based on the determined classification.
Xu teaches generating alarm thresholds based on the determined classification (Para 13: “Calculate the statistical features F1 and F2 of the disturbance signal and set a threshold as a classification criterion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the invention of Guan with the method of Xu by using the classification of Guan to create thresholds as taught by Xu. Doing so would allow for improved knowledge of which classification the measured data belongs to.
Regarding Claim 18, Guan in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Guan further teaches wherein the step of classifying comprises inputting the fit parameters into a classification logic (Para 12: “If it is determined that the current curve of the power line under test is not a sine curve within the preset time period, then it is determined that a thyristor load is connected to the power line under test”).
Regarding Claim 29, Guan in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Guan further teaches wherein the fit parameters include at least one of amplitude, phase offset and y-offset (Para 56: “The maximum value and effective value of the current in the power line to be detected within the preset time period are obtained based on the plurality of second current values”. The examiner notes that the maximum value of current is interpreted as equivalent to amplitude).
Regarding Claim 30, Guan in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Guan further teaches wherein the fitting procedure is a cosine function or a sine function (Para 49: “determine whether the current curve of the power line to be tested within the preset time period is a sine curve based on the plurality of second current values”).
Regarding Claim 31, Guan in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Guan further teaches wherein the data is time-series resistance data, time-series voltage data or time-series current data (Para 48: “collect multiple first current values within a preset time period”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dong (CN 112508429 A) teaches a cathodic protection system which uses voltage and current to predict fault of rectifiers (Para 41). This is accomplished using a fitting procedure (Para 71) and classification (Para 31).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights