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
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 07/08/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 15, and 20-22 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 8-14, and 17-19 have been canceled or were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 5-7, 15, 16, 20-22 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/07/2024, 06/25/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments / arguments
Applicant’s 07/08/2026 amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Response to Applicant’s rebuttal on the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection
Remarks 07/08/2026 p.9 ¶3-¶4 argues the problematic limitation is now removed withy the current amendment and hence the 35 USC 112(b) rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner confirms, concurs with Applicant and withdraws the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Response to Applicant’s rebuttal on the 35 USC 101 rejection
Examiner reincorporates all findings and rationales at Non-Final Act 04/17/2026 p.2 last ¶-p.9 ¶3, p.10-p.16. Now Remarks 07/08/2026 p.9 ¶6-7 similarly argues the method is directed to a specific technical application in the power grid field, and practical, eligible technical solution performed by a server, rather than an abstract idea or a mental process. Specifically:
SME Augment I Remarks 07/08/2026 p.9 ¶8-p.10 ¶2 argues the “acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of the power transmission line” in “determining risk assessment indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover”, are real-world operational data obtained from physical power grid facilities and operating environments. Thus, Claim 1 is argued as grounded in specific, objective, physical data inputs from the power grid field where the server executes computer processing steps of “determining risk assessment indexes”, “generating a standard cloud chart”, “generating a risk cloud chart”, “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation”, “and” “determining a risk level” argued as inherently designed for computer execution and cannot be performed by human mind.
Examiner fully considered the SME argument 1 but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by submitting that “acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of the power transmission line” as now amended at independent Claim 1, and argued at Remarks 07/08/2026 p9 ¶8-p10 ¶2, are not meaningfully different than the considerations for the 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
used in abstract collection of information and subsequent analysis of such collected information
as was the case in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, 6th bullet point. Looking closer to Electric Power Group, the Examiner finds that the Federal Circuit found that limiting or narrowing of the abstract exception to certain results of the collection and analysis as related to an electric power grid 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 guidelines of 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, limiting the “determining risk assessment indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover” to “acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of the power transmission line”, would similarly represent a limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring as a particular technological environment, incapable to render the claim patent eligible. Thus, the real-world operational data obtained from physical power grid facilities and operating environments, as argued at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶1 represents a mere technological environment or field of use upon which the abstract “risk” “determining” is being performed. According to MPEP 2106.05(h) such narrowing to a field of use or technological environment of the abstract idea does not render the claims less abstract. Also, MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3 is clear that narrow laws that have limited applications have still been held ineligible. It then follows that here narrow laws, taking the form of abstract risk assessment that have limited applications to “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” taking into consideration “acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of the power transmission line”, as argued by Applicant above, would remain ineligible when tested per MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3.
As per capabilities of the “server” in “determining risk assessment indexes”, “generating a standard cloud chart”, “generating a risk cloud chart”, “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation”, “and” “determining a risk level”, as argued by Applicant at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶2, the Examiner points to Non-Final Act 04/17/2026 p.3 ¶2, which found that according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2, #3 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. Here, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2, #3, the “server” would
represent such a computer tool or computer environment, in performing the abstract processes of “determining risk assessment indexes”, “generating a standard cloud chart”, “generating a risk cloud chart”, “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation”, “and” “determining a risk level”,
as raised by Applicant at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶2. 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” would represent mere invocation of computer or machinery as tools to apply the abstract steps of “determining risk assessment indexes”, “generating a standard cloud chart”, “generating a risk cloud chart”, “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation”, “and” “determining a risk level”. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) finds that use of a computer to apply mathematical algorithms does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Following such test, Examiner finds that here, such application of the abstract exception by the argued “server” does not integrate said abstract exception into a practical application as demonstrated in the analysis of Non-Final Act 04/17/2026 and reincorporated herein.
Therefore, the SME argument I is unpersuasive.
SME Augment II Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶3 argues the “server” is “outputting the risk level for visual display and communicating with an external terminal via a network interface of the server to provide a calculated risk value of line tripping caused by power transmission line windage yaw flashover” and thus involves specific physical output and practical application where interaction between server and external terminal via network interface provides support for line tripping risk control and is tied to physical hardware communication and power grid operation. Then, Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶ 4 argues that claim 1 establishes a complete technical chain: physical data input-computer-based processing-hardware-based output for visual display and data communication with an external terminal for the delivery of a calculated risk value.
Examiner fully considered SME Argument II but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive because the interaction between the “server” “with “an external terminal via a network interface” argued at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶3, represents a set of computer components and devices for the output or display of the results of collection, represented here by acquir[ing], obtain[ing] and analysis, represented here by determining, calculating etc. Yet, Federal Circuit made it clear in Electric Power Group, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v ALSTOM S.A. Alstom Grid, Inc., Psymetrix, Ltd., Alstom Limited, Defendants-Appellees 2015-1778, 830 F.3d 1350 (2016) August 1, 2016 citing Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349-52, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7 that performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices did not render the claims eligible. Therefore, the Examiner reasons that here, as in Electric Power Group, the combination of computer, network, and display technology for performing the combined functions of gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information, does not render the claims patent eligible.
This finding is further corroborated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 citing TLI Communications 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-1748 to demonstrate that the combination between a server and a display unit did not render the claims patent eligible. In fact, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 established that invocation of computer or other machinery to receive, store and transmit data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. It then follows that here, the analogously argued input and output chain of receiving and transmitting or “outputting” data by invocation of server and external terminal via network interface, as raised by Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶3-¶ 4, would similarly not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than what was already identified as the abstract idea.
As per the power grid operation, as alleged by Applicant at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶3, 2nd sentence, the Examiner finds that the claims themselves merely provide for risk calculation and assessment. Aside from such abstract risk calculation and assessment, at no point do the claims provide technological details of actual power grid operation. This finding is important because “101 inquiry must focus on language of Asserted Claims themselves” as in “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 “Accenture Global Servs., GmbH
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Guidewire Software, Inc. 728
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F.3d
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1336, 1345 108 USPQ2d 1173 Fed Cir. 2013: admonishing that the important inquiry for a 101 analysis is to look to the claim”, citing “Content Extraction & Transmission LLC
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v.
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n 776
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F3d
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1343, 1346 113 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014): We focus here on whether the claims of the asserted patents fall within the excluded category of abstract ideas”, cert. denied, 136 S Ct 119, 193 L. Ed. 2d 208 2015). This is consistent with MPEP 2103 I.C stating that “claims define the property rights provided by patent, thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify boundaries of protection sought by applicant and to understand how claims relate to and define what applicant indicated is the invention. USPTO personnel must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of claim before determining if claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability”. Simply said “[T]he name of the game is the claim”. Also, as instructed by MPEP 2106.05(a) ¶7: “the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement”. Here, the claims themselves reflect nothing more than the risk calculation and assessment disclosed in the specification. Neither the claims, nor the specification provide improvement in actual technology.
Based on such preponderance of evidence, Examiner finds SME Argument II unpersuasive.
SME Argument III Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶5 argues amended claim 1 constitutes a practical application of computer technology in the field of power transmission line risk handling to resolve technical problems existing in actual power grid operation. The amended claim 1 is tightly tied to real-world physical data, server-executed processing, and hardware-based external interaction. Then, Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶6-p.11 ¶2 argues the amended claim 1 achieves balanced and reasonable weighting, thereby overcoming the imbalance between subjective and objective weighting in the prior art. The step of outputting the risk level for visual display is argued to transform abstract, machine-readable risk data into a physically tangible, human-perceivable visual format. The step of communicating with an external terminal via a network interface is argued to achieve the physical transmission of risk data from the server to a physically distinct external device. This physical transmission frees the risk calculation result from the confines of the server itself, is argued to make it accessible to operators in remote locations, control centers, or on-site via portable terminals, such that it allegedly integrates the risk calculation directly into the practical workflow of power grid operation and maintenance, enabling the calculated risk value to be used for decision-making, dispatch, and preventive actions. Most significantly, it is argued to establish a closed loop technical system where data is processed, output, communicated, and ultimately applied to manage a real-world technical problem (power line safety), rather than existing as an abstract idea. In summary, it is argued that these physical, hardware-linked, computer-executable features and their substantial technical effects establish that the amended claim 1 is significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner fully considered the SME argument III bur respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reincorporating all findings and rationales above as well as all findings and rationales at Non-Final Act 04/17/2026 p.2 last ¶-p.9 ¶3, p.10-p.16. Specifically, the Examiner responds that the field of power transmission line risk handling, as argued by Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶5, is at most a field of use or technological environment that narrows the abstract risk assessment, which according to MPEP 2106.05(h), such as MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi), does not integrate such abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Thus here, the alleged improvement is at most an improvement in the abstract risk assessment, not an improvement in actual technology. Examiner reincorporates the findings and rationales at Non-Final Act 04/17/2026 p. 7 ¶2 which cited MPEP 2106.04 I. to state 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”.
MPEP 2106.05 (c) ¶5, further corroborates that mere manipulation of mathematical constricts has not been deemed as a patent eligible transformation2. Thus here, thus the outputting the risk level for visual display, as argued by Applicant at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶6 2nd-3rd sentences is not
a patent eligible transformation, when the character as a whole of the claims remains undeniably abstract. In fact, even if one assumes, in the arguendo, that the current risk calculation and assessment would somehow be groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, this would not necessarily render the claims patent eligible because, ultimately, their alleged innovation would be innovation in the ineligible subject matter of risk calculation or assessment as summarized at the preamble of Claim 1 and then detailed throughout the body of Claims 1,5-7,15-16,20-22, 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 of allegedly achieving balanced and reasonable weighting, thereby overcoming the imbalance between subjective and objective weighting in the prior art, as raised at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶6. 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 ruled that: “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 would similarly not render the claims patent eligible by similar rationales to at the least the rulings of SAP, Myriad and Mayo supra.
Examiner also notes that some of the features argued by Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶6-p.11 ¶2 such as transforming into a format, the freeing of the risk calculation result from the confines of the server itself to make it accessible to operators in remote locations, control centers, or on-site via portable terminals, and enabling the calculated risk value to be used for decision-making, dispatch, and preventive actions, do not appear to be recited in the claims. This finding is important because the “101 inquiry must focus on language of Asserted Claims themselves” as in “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 “Accenture Global Servs., GmbH
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Guidewire Software, Inc. 728
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F.3d
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1336, 1345 108 USPQ2d 1173 Fed Cir. 2013: admonishing that the important inquiry for a 101 analysis is to look to the claim”, citing “Content Extraction & Transmission LLC
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v.
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n 776
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F3d
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1343, 1346 113 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014): We focus here on whether the claims of the asserted patents fall within the excluded category of abstract ideas”, cert. denied, 136 S Ct 119, 193 L. Ed. 2d 208 2015). This is consistent with MPEP 2103 I.C stating that “claims define the property rights provided by patent, thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify boundaries of protection sought by applicant and to understand how claims relate to and define what applicant indicated is the invention. USPTO personnel must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of claim before determining if claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability”. Simply said “[T]he name of the game is the claim”. Also, as instructed by MPEP 2106.05(a) ¶7: “the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement”.
Even if the unclaimed features of Remarks 07/08/2026 p.10 ¶6-p.11 ¶2 would be claimed they would still not render the claims eligible. For example, enabling the calculated risk value to be used for decision-making, dispatch, and preventive actions, as argued at Remarks 07/08/2026 p.11 ¶1, would set forth the cognitive judgment (here decision-making) of the abstract mental processes of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2, and the fundamental practices of dispatch and mitigation (here prevention) of certain methods of organizing human activities of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A.
Based on the preponderance of legal evidence above, the Examiner finds the SME argument III unpersuasive.
Remarks 07/08/2026 p.11 ¶4 further argues that Claim 15 is amended similarly to the amended claim 1; thus, as set forth above, the amended Claims 15-16, 20-22 are not directed toward the abstract idea and sufficient to qualify as significantly more. Examiner fully considered the argument respectfully disagrees and reincorporates all findings and rationales above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1,5-7,15,16,20-22 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.
Claims 1,15 are independent and have been amended to recite, among others:
determining risk assessment indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover…
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;
outputting the risk level for visual display and communicating with an external terminal via a network interface of the server to provide a calculated risk value of line tripping caused by power transmission line windage yaw flashover;
Claims 1,15 thus initially recite “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” at first “determining” limitation, then recite “the power transmission line windage yaw flashover” [bolded emphasis added] at “performing a two-dimensional similarity calculation” limitation and then reverts to “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” at “outputting” limitation. Accordingly, Claims 1,5 are rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” as subsequently recited at outputting limitation relates back to “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” as antecedently recited at first determining limitation. Examiner recommends that Applicant amend Claims 1,15 to clarify if “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” as subsequently recited at “outputting” limitation relates back to “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” as antecedently recited at first “determining” limitation.
Claims 5-7,16 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1.
Claims 20-22 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 15.
Clarification and correction 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, 5-7, 15, 16 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 calculation” and “assessment” “for” the limited application3 of “power transmission line windage yaw flashover” with consideration for “risk assessment indexes” 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)4. 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 similarly determin[e] risk assessment indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of a power transmission line 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 “determining risk assessment indexes of power transmission line windage yaw flashover according to acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of a power transmission line”; “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 a comparison 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 ineligibility path 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 iv5.
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
according to acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of a power transmission line”; (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 a comparison 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),
- “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)
Also here, the following would also constitute examples of displaying certain results of the collection and analysis:
- “outputting the risk level for visual display… to provide a calculated risk value of line tripping caused by power transmission line windage yaw flashover” (Claims 1,15,16)
As per, the performance of the above abstract concepts using “server”, “memory” stor[ed] computer programs executed by “processor” at Claims 1,15,16,20-22, and similar use of “visual display and communicating with an external terminal via a network interface of the server” at Claims 1,15,16, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C stating 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 1,15,16,20-22, and similar use of “visual display and communicating with an external terminal via a network interface of the server” at Claims 1,15,16, 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 and similar use of “visual display and communicating with an external terminal via a network interface of the server” at Claims 1,15,16, were found above as mere computer-aids. Even if they are now considered and tested as additional computer-based elements to abstract idea identified above, they would still represent mere computer components invoked as tools, upon which the above abstract process and their 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. As per “visual display and communicating with an external terminal via a network interface of the server” “for” “outputting the risk level” “to provide a calculated risk value of line tripping caused by power transmission line windage yaw flashover”; at Claims 1,15,16 the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v) stating that requiring use of computer components to tailor information and provide it (here “output”) to the user on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract exception onto a practical application. This is further by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 citing TLI Communications 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-1748 to shown that the combination between a server and a display unit did not render the claims patent eligible. In fact, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 already established that invocation of computer or other machinery to receive and transmit data does not integrate the abstract idea or provide significantly more. It then follows that here the analogous invocation of server and external terminal via network interface, for receiving and transmitting or “outputting” data, would similarly not integrate the abstract idea.
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 application. 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” “according to acquired historical fault information, operation and maintenance information, and meteorological information of a power transmission line” 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 without having to rely on the conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d). 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 high level of generality of the additional elements read in light of
- Original Specification ¶ [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 1,5-7,15,16,20-22 although directed to statutory categories (“method” or process at Claims 1,5-7, “non-transitory storage medium”, or article of manufacture at Claim 16, “computer device” or machine at Claims 15,20-22) 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 1,5-7,15-16,20-22 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 a comparison 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 5-7,16 are dependent and overcome the prior art by dependency to parent Claim 1.
Claims 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
The 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
August 3rd, 2026
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
2 CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
3 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
4 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
5 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
Prosecution Insights