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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination filed on 10/17/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2,15,17 have been amended with Applicant’s 10/17/2025 amendment.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 15-17 and 20-22 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 10/17/2025 amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Response to Applicant’s amendment with respect to 35 USC 112(a) rejection
35 USC 112(a) rejection at Final Act 08/21/2025 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s 10/17/2025 amendment removing “a server disposed on power transmission lines” etc. (independent Claim 1) and “computer device disposed on power transmission lines” (independent Claim 15).
Response to Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on 35 USC 101
SME argument 1: Remarks 10/17/2025 p.8 ¶2, p.10 ¶3 argues independent Claims 1,15 have been amended to recite a server to perform the claimed steps and also argues that the “risk assessment” is not a general method but rather directed to transmission line tripping in the power system caused by windage yaw flashover of transmission lines which is a specific technical challenge or problem in power system engineering, involving physical parameters such as transmission line physical characteristics (e.g., tower span, tower type) and meteorological data (e.g., wind speed, rainfall), which is argued to be fundamentally different from the abstract concept of risk assessment. Remarks 10/17/2025 p.8 ¶2 also argues that “the risk cloud” and “the standard cloud” are not mathematical models, but are rather generated on the specific “risk assessment indexes that comprise the number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, the strong wind region, the micrometeorological region, the tower span, the windage yaw-prone tower type, the value of wind speed, and the value of rainfall”; as physical parameters of transmission lines. Thus, the Applicant argues independent claims 1,15 are integrated into a practical application of power transmission lines and facilities of power grids to improve accuracy of windage yaw flashover risk assessment results, not directed abstract idea.
Examiner considered SME argument 1 but respectfully disagrees fining it unpersuasive. First, Examiner submits that performance by “a server” of the abstract processes recited throughout the claims, does not render said claims less abstract and eligible. This is because said
“server” (independent Claim 1) or its underlining instructed “processor” (independent Claim 15) can be argued as a computer environment, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2, and/or tool, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #3, upon which the abstract “risk assessment” is being performed. Yet, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2, #3 states that performing such process in a computer environment and/or use of a computer as a tool to perform such abstract processes does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception. Even when further tested beyond mere computer aids [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C] and as additional, computer-based elements [MPEP 2106.05(f), (h)] such “server” (independent Claim 1) or its underlining instructed “processor” (independent Claim 15) would represent mere invocation of computer or machinery as tools to apply the abstract steps of “risk assessment” as identified, mapped and detailed at Final Act 08/21/2025 p.6-p.10 and reincorporated herein. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) finds that use of a computer to apply mathematical algorithms does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical appclaition. Following such test, the Examiner finds that here, such application of the abstract exception by the argued “server” and “processor” does not integrate said abstract exception into a practical application as demonstrated in the analysis of Final Act 08/21/2025 p.10 ¶ 6-p.11 ¶1. More to the point, pertinent to the current claims is the finding of
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, 6th bullet point that an analogous wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid, still recited, described or set forth the abstract idea, by citing Electric Power Group,830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1,119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1. Also, MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3 is clear that narrow laws that may have limited applications have still been held ineligible. It then follows that here, the monitoring and assessing risk indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover that causes tripping of a power transmission line in a power system, does, similar to the grid (in)stability in Electric Power Group would also not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting froth the abstract idea no matter of the narrowing of the risk assessment to limited applications considering “historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, a strong wind region, a micrometeorological region, a tower span, a windage yaw-prone tower type, a value of wind speed, and a value of rainfall”.
Further, looking closer to Electric Power Group, as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, 6th bullet point, the Examiner finds that the Federal Circuit found that limiting or narrowing of the abstract exception to certain results of the collection and analysis related to a field of use technological environment represented by data streams, of time stamped synchronized phasor measurements of the interconnected electric power grid, and associated frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, grid stress, grid instability, etc. over the wide area did not render the claims less abstract and eligible. This is reflected in the MPEP guidelines at MPEP 2106.05(h) vi1 stating that limiting the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, represents a limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring as a particular technological environment, incapable to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It then follows that here, the analogous narrowing of the “risk assessment for power transmission line windage yaw flashover” to “risk assessment indexes that comprise the number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, the strong wind region, the micrometeorological region, the tower span, the windage yaw-prone tower type, the value of wind speed, and the value of rainfall”, as raised by Applicant at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.8 ¶2, would similarly not render the currently claims less abstract and eligible, much less integrate the abstract exemption into a practical application.
Also, with respect to the same narrowing argument of the abstract “risk assessment indexes” [to] “comprise a number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, a strong wind region, a micrometeorological region, a tower span, a windage yaw- prone tower type, a value of wind speed, and a value of rainfall” as amended by Applicant on 10/17/2025 and argued at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.8-p.9 ¶1, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04 “Eligibility Step 2: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception I” & “MPEP 2106.07(b) Evaluating Applicant’s Response” which states that the Courts do not use the narrowing argument as stand-alone test for eligibility. For example, even though the claims in “Flook” did not wholly preempt mathematical formula, and the claims in “Mayo” were directed to narrow laws that may have limited applications [as argued here at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.8 ¶2], the Supreme Court nonetheless held them ineligible because they failed to amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions (Flook at 589-590; Mayo at 1302 cited at July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility p.8 Section VI, p.11 footnotes 26 to 29). Examiner also submits that the Federal Circuit followed the Supreme Court’s lead in rejecting arguments that a lack of total preemption equates with eligibility (buySafe 765 F.3d at 1355; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. Also “Fairwarning Page IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2015-1985 October 11, 2016, 2016 BL 337879, 120 USPQ2d 1293” citing “Ariosa”. Also “McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, Nos. 2015-1080-1081,-1082,-1083,-1084,-1086,-1087,-1088,-1089,-1090,-1092,-1093,-1094,-1095,-1096,-1097,-1098,-1099,-1100,-1101, September 13, 2016, 2016 BL 297537, 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091” at p.1102 last ¶ 1st sentence, and Synopsys, Inc. v Mentor Graphics Corp, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No 2015-1599, October 17,2016,2016 BL 344522,839 F3d 1138” citing Ariosa. Instead, the questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from “Alice Corp” and “Mayo” and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and “those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Yet, it is important to note that while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that the claim is eligible. Even arguing that there are other ways to practice not to preempt an abstract idea, does not make the claim “less abstract” and eligible (“OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 115 USPQ2d 1090 at page 1092 2nd to last ¶ citing buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)” and “Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, 728 F.3dast 1345”), or said differently “the availability of other possible computer-implemented methods […] does not assuage fears of blocking further innovation” (The Money Suite Co. v 21st Century Ins. & Fin. Co. v 21st Century Ins. & Fin again citing OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C-12-1233 EMC, 2012 WL 3985118, at *12 N.D. Cal. Sept 11, 2012. Also “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” “Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. “OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed Cir. 2015)” further corroborated by “MPEP 2106.05(h)”. Said differently, mere restatement of what was already determined as abstract idea by narrowing or reformulating the abstract idea is not enough to save the claims from ineligibility (“BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2017-1980, August 15, 2018, 2018 BL 291291, 899 F.3d 1281”, p.1695 citing “SAP Am Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, No. 2017-2081, at*14, Fed. Cir May 15, 2018”). Indeed, limiting or narrowing of the abstract idea does not render the claims any less abstract. For example, MPEP 2106.04 I cites Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 to state claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" [were still] held ineligible. Similarly, MPEP 2106.04 I cites “Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197” to state that claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible.
As per the Applicant’s contention at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.8 ¶2, 6th sentence that “the risk cloud” and “the standard cloud” are not mere mathematical models, the Examiner again respectfully disagrees and point to the claim langue itself “generating a standard cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to incident occurrence probabilities and consequence levels of the risk assessment indexes; acquiring scores of the risk assessment indexes and generating a risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the scores; and
performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation on the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart to obtain two-dimensional similarity between the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart and determining a risk level of the power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to the two-dimensional similarity”. It is clear that the “standard cloud chart” is based on mathematical “probabilities”, “levels” and “indexes” expressed in words consistent with the mathematical expressions and relationships of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A as part of what appears to be an equally subtract evaluation of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2. It is also clear that the “risk cloud chart” is based on mathematical “indexes” and “scores” expressed in words consistent with the mathematical expressions and relationships of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A. These findings are further corroborated by the expression “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation on the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart to obtain two-dimensional similarity between the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart and determining a risk level of the power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to the two-dimensional similarity”.
Based on the preponderance of legal evidence above the Examiner finds the SME subject matter eligibility argument 1 unpersuasive.
SME argument 2: Remarks 10/17/2025 p.8 ¶3-p.9 ¶2,p.10 ¶2 further argues the amended independent Claims 1,15 addresses the shortcomings of windage yaw flashover risk assessment technology in the prior art that: 1. rarely calculates and analyzes the probability and risk value of windage yaw tripping, and as a result, the risk assessment is not universally applicable; 2. the weighting proportion between subjectivity and objectivity is unbalanced, partial weighting tends to subjective expert opinions, and partial weighting tends to objective reality conditions; and 3. the prior art does not sufficiently take into account the fuzziness of different assessment index boundaries. Specifically, it is argued that by generating a standard cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to incident occurrence probabilities and consequence levels of the risk assessment indexes, and then acquiring scores of the risk assessment indexes and generating a risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the scores; and calculating the weight values of the risk assessment indexes; wherein the risk assessment indexes comprise the number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, the strong wind region, the micrometeorological region, the tower span, the windage yaw-prone tower type, the value of wind speed, and the value of rainfall, the occurrence possibility and the occurrence consequence are considered, the index risk level boundary fuzziness is fully considered, and the assessment result is more reasonable, so that the assessment of the windage yaw flashover is more universal and that the result is output in the form of a cloud chart, and the visualization degree of the risk level is high.
Examiner considered SME argument 2 but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
First, Examiner submits that the fact that the risk assessment would apparently be more universal, more reasonable, and the visualization degree of risk level is high, as argued by Applicant at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.10 ¶1, would not represent improvement in actual technology, or improvement of the computer itself, but rather alleged improvements to abstract idea itself, namely an improvement in the risk assessment. Even if the risk assuagement would purportedly be more universal, more reasonable, etc. as argued by Applicant at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.10 ¶1, MPEP 2106.04 I. is clear that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry” citing Myriad, 569 U.S at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979”. Such rationale as articulated by the Court in Myriad was further corroborated in SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic as cited MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C (i). Specifically, the Court found in SAP that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. Thus here, even if one assumes, in the arguendo, that, by generating a standard and risk cloud charts associated with “risk assessment indexes” compris[ing] “a number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, the strong wind region, the micrometeorological region, the tower span, the windage yaw-prone tower type, the value of wind speed, and the value of rainfall”, the risk assessment would be more universal, more reasonable, and the visualization degree of the risk level is high, to somehow represent a groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, this would not necessarily render them eligible because, ultimately, their alleged innovation would still be innovation in the ineligible subject matter of “risk assessment” as summarized at the preamble of Claims 1,15 and then detailed throughout the body of Claims 1,2,5-7,15-17,20-22, then merely narrowed to elements of a field of use or technological environment which according to MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3 and MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi) would not render the claims patent eligible. Simply put, here, as in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims” [would] “recite the advance” [would still] “lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas” with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the SAP challenged patent proposed utilization of resampled statistical methods for analysis of data, which did not assume a normal probability distribution. This is analogous with the Applicant’s argument that the prior art rarely calculates and analyzes the probability and risk value of windage yaw tripping, and as a result, the risk assessment is not universally applicable, while the weighting proportion between subjectivity and objectivity is unbalanced, and without sufficiently taking into account the fuzziness of the different assessment index boundaries at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.9 ¶2. To address this the Applicant argues the current risk assessment is more universal, more reasonable, and the visualization degree of risk level is high, as asserted at Remarks 10/17/2025 p.10 ¶1. In a similar manner the proposed solution in SAP supra utilized a bootstrap method, which estimated distribution of data in a pool (a sample space) by repeated sampling of the data in the pool. A sample space in a boot-strap method can be defined by selecting a specific investment or a particular period of time. Data samples are drawn from the sample space with replacement: samples are drawn from the sample space and then returned to the pool before next sample is drawn. Yet, the Federal Circuit noted: “Dependent method claims 2-7 and 10 add limitations… [that] require the resampling method to be a bootstrap method." SAP, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 715 . Likewise, "[c]laims 8 and 9 add limitations that the statistical method is a jackknife method and a cross validation method." Id. at 716. Because bootstrap, jack-knife, and cross-validation methods are all "particular methods of resampling," those features simply provide further narrowing of what are still mathematical operations. They add nothing outside the abstract realm. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 88-89 (stating that narrow embodiments of ineligible matter, citing mathematical ideas as an example, are still ineligible); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353 (same). Dependent method claims 12-21 are no different”.
Since implementation of a sample space, and the dual algorithmic properties of boot-strap, jackknife, cross validation, and resampling for analysis of data, which did not assume a normal probability distribution [bolded emphasis added] did not save its claims from ineligibility in SAP, the Examiner similarly reasons that here, the analogous risk assessment by mathematical manipulations including consideration for “risk assessment indexes compris[ing] a number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, a strong wind region, a micrometeorological region, a tower span, a windage yaw- prone tower type, a value of wind speed, and a value of rainfall”; such that allegedly the deviation rate would have been smaller, risk assessment would have been more universal, and more reasonable, would similarly not render the claims patent eligible by similar consideration to at least SAP, Myriad and Mayo supra.
Based on the preponderance of legal evidence above the Examiner finds the SME subject matter eligibility argument 2 unpersuasive.
In conclusion, Examiner submits that the claims still recite, describe or at least set forth the abstract “risk assessment” (Step 2A prong one), with no additional computer-based elements capable to either alone or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, the claims are ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-2, 5-7, 15-17 and 20-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In this instant case,
Claims 1,15 are independent and have been amended to each recite at first respective limitation: “the risk assessment indexes comprise a number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, a strong wind region, a micrometeorological region, a tower span, a windage yaw- prone tower type, a value of wind speed, and a value of rainfall”.
The term “strong” in claims 1,15 is a relative term which renders said claims 1,15 indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claims, and aside from a mere mentioning of the term strong wind region at Fig.2, the Original Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of strength, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Without such a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of strength and without any reasonably way for one of ordinary skills in the art to ascertain the scope of the strength in such invention, the independent Claims 1,15 are rendered vague and indefinite.
Claims 2,5-7,16 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 1.
Claims 17,20-22 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 15. Clarification and/or correction is/are 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 1-2, 5-7, 15-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims still recite, describe, or set forth abstract idea of “risk assessment” “for” the limited application2 of “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” with consideration for “risk assessment indexes” that “comprise a number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, a strong wind region, a micrometeorological region, a tower span, a windage yaw- prone tower type, a value of wind speed, and a value of rainfall” as computer-aided mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C) by equally abstract mathematical relationships expressed in words (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A)3. Examiner justifies such rationale by pointing to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D which cited Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n1 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1, showing that a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid was integral to an abstract idea. Looking closer at Electric Power Group supra, the Examiner finds its claims performed real-time performance monitoring of electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results. See'710 patent, col. 1, lines 27-30; id., col. 2, lines 43-49. For example, claim 12 of '710 patent read: A method of detecting events on an inter-connected electric power grid in real time over a wide area and automatically analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power grid, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of data streams, each of the data streams comprising sub-second, time stamped synchronized phasor measurements wherein the measurements in each stream are collected in real time at geographically distinct points over the wide area of the interconnected electric power grid, the wide area comprising at least two elements from among control are-as, transmission companies, utilities, regional reliability coordinators, and reliability jurisdictions;
receiving data from other power system data sources, the other power system data sources comprising at least one of transmission maps, power plant locations, EMS/SCADA systems;
receiving data from a plurality of non-grid data sources;
detecting and analyzing events in real-time from the plurality of data streams from the wide area based on at least one of limits, sensitivities and rates of change for one or more measurements from the data streams and dynamic stability metrics derived from analysis of the measurements from the data streams including at least one of frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes, derived from the phasor measurements and the other power system data sources in which the metrics are indicative of events, grid stress, and/or grid instability, over the wide area;
displaying the event analysis results and diagnoses of events and associated ones of the metrics from different categories of data and the derived metrics in visuals, tables, charts, or combinations thereof, the data comprising at least one of monitoring data, tracking data, historical data, prediction data, and summary data;
displaying concurrent visualization of measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics directed to the wide area of the interconnected electric power grid;
accumulating and updating the measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics, grid data, and non-grid data in real time as to wide area and local area portions of the interconnected electric power grid; and
deriving a composite indicator of reliability that is an indicator of power grid vulnerability and is derived from a combination of one or more real time measurements or computations of measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics covering the wide area as well as non-power grid data received from the non-grid data source.
Here, Claims 1,15,16 “determin[e] risk assessment indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover” with associated “risk assessment indexes” that “comprise a number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, a strong wind region, a micrometeorological region, a tower span, a windage yaw- prone tower type, a value of wind speed, and a value of rainfall” in a manner not meaningfully different than the Electric Power Group’s measured phasor “and “data streams” including” “frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes, derived from the phasor measurements and the other power system data sources in which the metrics are indicative of events, grid stress, and/or grid instability, over the wide area” of “. Also Claims 1,15,16 recite “generating risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the scores” for “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation on the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart to obtain two-dimensional similarity between the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart and determining a risk level of the power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to the two-dimensional similarity”; “calculating weight values of the risk assessment indexes according to the expert assessment system”, “generating an initial risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the assessment results”; “and” “generating the risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the weight values and the initial risk cloud chart”; “and” “sorting the risk assessment indexes according to the expert assessment system and performing comparing according to risk assessment indexes of adjacent sequence numbers to obtain comparison results; and determining subjective weight values of the risk assessment indexes based on a stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis method according to the comparison results”.
Such limitations are not meaningfully different than the “derived from the phasor measurements and the other power system data sources in which the metrics are indicative of events, grid stress, and/or grid instability, over the wide area”, power grid vulnerability of “Electric Power Group”.
Thus, the current claims should be construed to recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea by similar rationales as articulated by the Federal circuit in “Electric Power Group” supra.
This rationale was echoed in TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc v. AKM Enter., Inc 657 Fed. Appx. 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Court found determining well operation state as an abstract idea: “As we discussed at greater length in Electric Power, the claims of the '812 patent recite the what of the invention, but none of the how that is necessary to turn the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Electric Power [2016 BL 247416] 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13861 [2016 BL 247416], 2016 WL 4073318 at *4-5. Therefore, we find that claim 1 is patent-ineligible under § 101”
Following such legal precedents as articulated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the Examiner finds that here the “risk assessment indexes” (Claims 1,2,5,6,15,17,20,21) for “generating a risk cloud chart” used in “determining a risk level of power transmission line windage yaw flashover” (Claims 1,15,16) would follow a similar path of ineligibility as that of the wide-area real-time performance monitoring system of power grid in Electric Power Group and/or determining well operation state in TDE Petroleum. Also, the mathematical manipulations of: “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation on the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart to obtain two-dimensional similarity between the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart and determining a risk level of the power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to the two-dimensional similarity” at Claims 1,15, 16 and further narrowed at Claims 7,22, as well as “converting the assessment results into intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and calculating objective weight values of the risk assessment indexes based on a direct fuzzy entropy weight method” at dependent Claims 5,20, “generating a two-dimensional normal cloud model of the standard cloud chart according to an occurrence probability level, a consequence level, and a membership degree of windage yaw flashover of the standard cloud chart and generating a two-dimensional normal cloud model of the risk cloud chart according to an occurrence probability level, a consequence level, and a membership degree of windage yaw flashover of the risk cloud chart; and performing cloud model similarity calculation according to the two-dimensional normal cloud model of the standard cloud chart and the two-dimensional normal cloud model chart of the risk cloud to obtain the two-dimensional similarity between the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart” at dependent Claims 7,22, are not meaningfully different than the generating of first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical correlations, and organizing this information into a new form, found abstract in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F3d 1344,1350,111 USPQ2d 1717,1721 (Fed Cir 2014) cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A iv4.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III which found that the combination of computer aided observation, evaluation and judgement set forth mental processes. For example, MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III A cites Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to state that a claim reciting the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, where the data analysis steps still set forth the abstract mental processes. It then follows that here, the following would also constitute examples of analysis or evaluation and/or judgment based on collected information or observations:
- “determining risk assessment indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover”; (Claims 1,15,16),
- “generating a standard cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to incident occurrence probabilities and consequence levels of the risk assessment indexes”; (Claims 1,15,16),
- “acquiring scores of the risk assessment indexes and generating a risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the scores”; (Claims 1,15,16), “and”
- “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation on the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart to obtain two-dimensional similarity between the risk cloud chart and the standard cloud chart and determining a risk level of the power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to the two-dimensional similarity” (Claims 1,15,16),
- “calculating weight values of the risk assessment indexes according to the expert assessment system” (Claims 1,15,16),
- “acquiring assessment results of the risk assessment indexes through the expert assessment system and generating an initial risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the assessment results”; (Claims 1,15,16), “and”
- “generating the risk cloud chart of the risk assessment indexes according to the weight values and the initial risk cloud chart”; (Claims 1,15,16), “and”
- “sorting the risk assessment indexes according to the expert assessment system and performing comparing according to risk assessment indexes of adjacent sequence numbers to obtain comparison results” (Claims 1,15,16),
- “determining subjective weight values of the risk assessment indexes based on a stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis method according to the comparison results” (Claims 1,15,16),
- “determining the risk assessment indexes of the power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of a power transmission line” (Claims 2,17),
- “assessing the risk assessment indexes according to the expert assessment system to obtain the assessment results; and converting the assessment results into intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and calculating objective weight values of the risk assessment indexes based on a direct fuzzy entropy weight method” (Claims 5,20),
- “determining comprehensive weight values of the risk assessment indexes by a combined weighting method based on a game theory according to the subjective weight values and the objective weight values; and using the comprehensive weight values as the weight values of the risk assessment indexes” (Claims 6, 21),
- “generating a two-dimensional normal cloud model of the standard cloud chart according to an occurrence probability level, a consequence level, and a membership degree of windage yaw flashover of the standard cloud chart and generating a two-dimensional normal cloud model of the risk cloud chart according to an occurrence probability level, a consequence level, and a membership degree of windage yaw flashover of the risk cloud chart”; (Claims 7,22). “and”
- “performing cloud model similarity calculation according to the two-dimensional normal cloud model of the standard cloud chart and the two-dimensional normal cloud model of the risk cloud to obtain the two-dimensional similarity between the risk cloud and the standard cloud chart” (Claims 7,22)
As per, the performance of the above abstract concepts using the “server”, “memory” stor[ed] computer programs executed by “processor” at Claims 1,15,16,17,20-22, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. which states that: # 1. Performing a mental process on generic computer, # 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, and # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract mental processes.
Here, the “server”, “memory” “stor[ed] computer programs executed by “processor” at Claims 1,15,16,17,20-22, would represent such example(s) of #1. Performing a mental process on generic computer, # 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, and/or # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, which as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C would not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract mental processes.
In an abundance of caution such computerization will be more granularly tested at subsequent steps below. For now, given the preponderance of legal evidence above, it is clear that the claims recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. Step 2A prong one.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements is/are found to merely apply the already recited abstract idea. Here, the “server” and its underlining “memory” “stor[ed] computer programs executed by “processor” at Claims 1, 15,16,17,20-22 were found above as mere computer-aids. Even if they are now considered and tested as additional computer-based elements to the abstract exception identified above, they would still represent mere computer components invoked as tool(s), upon which the aforementioned abstract process and its underlining algorithm are being applied. These however, as revealed by, MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)(i) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) any general recitation of computerization in “risk assessment indexes” would correspond to a mere process for monitoring audit log data executed on a computer, which is another example of applying the abstract idea, that does not integrate it into a practical application.
Similarly, MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. cites Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to state that limiting the combination of collecting, analyzing and displaying certain results of collection and analysis, to a technological environment or field of use characterized by a power grid does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical appclaition. It follows that here, narrowing the combination of collecting, analyzing and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, as identified at the prior step, to a power grid field of use or technological environment reflected by “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” and “risk assessment indexes” that “comprise a number of historical windage yaw trips, post-modification faults following windage yaw, a strong wind region, a micrometeorological region, a tower span, a windage yaw- prone tower type, a value of wind speed, and a value of rainfall” would also not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements capable to integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Step 2A prong two.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and link the use of abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment. Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II and carries over the findings tested per MPEP 2106.05 (f),(h) to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more. Even assuming arguendo, that further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer-based elements, Examiner would also point as evidence to the high level of generality of the additional elements read in light of Original Disclosure:
- Spec ¶ [0090]-¶ [0092] reciting at high level: “A computer device is provided in an embodiment and includes a memory and a processor. The memory stores computer programs. When executing the computer programs, the processor performs steps of the preceding method embodiments. In an embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium is provided. The storage medium stores a computer program. When executing the computer programs, the processor performs steps of the preceding method embodiments. It is to be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art that all or part of the processes in the methods of the embodiments described above may be completed by instructing related hardware through computer programs, the computer programs may be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium, and during the execution of the computer programs, the processes in the method embodiments described above may be included. All references to the memory, storage, database, or other media used in the various embodiments provided in the present application may each include at least one of a non-volatile or a volatile memory. The non-volatile memory may include a read-only memory (ROM), a magnetic tape, a floppy disk, a flash, and an optical memory. The volatile memory may include a random access memory (RAM) or an external cache memory. By way of illustration but not limitation, the RAM may be in a variety of forms, such as a static random-access memory (SRAM) or a dynamic random-access memory (DRAM)”.
In conclusion, Claims 1-2,5-7,15-17,20-22 although directed to statutory categories (“method” or process at Claims 1,2,5-7, “non-transitory storage medium”, or article of manufacture at Claim 16, “computer device” or machine at Claims 15, 17, 20-22) they still recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Thus Claims 1-2,5-7,15-17,20-22 are ineligible.
Allowable subject matter
- Reasons for allowability with respect to overcoming the prior art -
Claims 1,15 are independent and overcome prior art, with the following being Examiner’s statement of reasons for overcoming the prior art: The closest prior art is Lei et al, Comprehensive prediction method for failure rate of transmission line based on multi‐dimensional cloud model, IET Generation, Transmission and Distribution, 13, no 9, pp 1672-1678, May 2019 hereinafter Lei
as previously mapped at Non-Final Act 05/07/2025 p.8 ¶2-p.16 ¶1. Yet, neither Lei, nor any other prior art on record teaches alone or, in combination, with adequate rationale(s), the combined recitation, in each of independent Claims 1,15 of: “wherein calculating the weight values of the risk assessment indexes according to the expert assessment system comprises: sorting the risk assessment indexes according to the expert assessment system and performing comparing according to risk assessment indexes of adjacent sequence numbers to obtain comparison results: and determining subjective weight values of the risk assessment indexes based on a stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis method according to the comparison results”.
Claims 2,5-7,16 are dependent and overcome the prior art by dependency to parent Claim 1.
Claims 17,20-22 are dependent and overcome the prior art by dependency to parent Claim 15.
Examiner reminds the Applicant that novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are mostly abstract that do not render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101). Simply said the novel and non-obviousness rationale above do not necessarily render the claims patent eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965; Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
An L, et al, Research on windage yaw flashovers of transmission lines under wind and rain conditions, Energies, 12 no 19, Sep 29, 2019
Qiu et al, Discharge voltage prediction of UHV AC transmission line–tower air gaps by a machine learning model, The Journal of Engineering, no16, p3140-p3144, Mar 2019
Shao et al, Study on windage yaw calculation and real‐time warning method of Shanxi power grid considering microclimate and micro‐terrain factors. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 13, no 5, pp681-688, May 2018
WO 2017032210 A1 Cluster analysis based power transmission line mountain fire risky area division method
US 20180189898 A1 Cluster analysis based power transmission line mountain fire risky area division method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/OCTAVIAN ROTARU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
April 14th, 2026
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
2 MPEP 2106.04I ¶3 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" were held ineligible
3 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
4 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
Prosecution Insights