Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 07/30/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 10, 13, 15 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/30/2026 regarding 101 rejection for independent claims 10 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection sent on Office Action mailed on 03/27/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/30/2026 regarding 101 rejection for independent claim 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant argued on page 8 for claim 13 that “Amended claim 13 now expressly recites that the arithmetic unit is configured to "calculate a maximum winding point temperature based on the average temperature of the upper part of the winding" and "estimate a remaining life of the transformer based on the calculated maximum winding point temperature." These limitations directly incorporate the technological improvement described in paragraph [0036] of the specification”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
detect an upper temperature of the insulating oil at the top of the transformer, a lower temperature of the insulating oil at the bottom of the transformer, and hydrogen in the transformer, to determine an abnormality in the transformer based on detection values, calculate an average oil temperature based on the upper temperature and the lower temperature, calculate an average winding temperature based on predetermined winding temperatures of the winding, calculate an average temperature difference between the average winding temperature and the average oil temperature, calculate an average temperature of an upper part of the winding based on the average temperature difference and the upper temperature, and calculate a maximum winding point temperature and estimate a remaining life of the transformer based on the calculated maximum winding point temperature (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations/Mental Step”).
(These limitations can be performed by mental steps using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “a transformer, in which an insulating oil and a winding are disposed; a plurality of detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer; arithmetic unit in the independent claim 13 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because relate to insignificant extra solution activity, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. a transformer, in which an insulating oil and a winding are disposed; a plurality of detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer; arithmetic unit such features were conventional, as best understood, for example US 2010/0274529 A1 discloses a transformer having an insulating oil and a winding, temperature detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer and configured to detect an upper temperature of the insulating oil at the top of the transformer and a lower temperature of the insulating oil at the bottom of the transformer in para [0098]-[0100] and arithmetic unit/computer in para [0098] and US 2021/0123797 A1 discloses a transformer having an insulating oil and a winding, temperature detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer and configured to detect an upper temperature of the insulating oil at the top of the transformer and a lower temperature of the insulating oil at the bottom of the transformer in para [0050]. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention s directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to claims 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 13 is directed to system which is an apparatus and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
detect an upper temperature of the insulating oil at the top of the transformer, a lower temperature of the insulating oil at the bottom of the transformer, and hydrogen in the transformer, to determine an abnormality in the transformer based on detection values, calculate an average oil temperature based on the upper temperature and the lower temperature, calculate an average winding temperature based on predetermined winding temperatures of the winding, calculate an average temperature difference between the average winding temperature and the average oil temperature, calculate an average temperature of an upper part of the winding based on the average temperature difference and the upper temperature, and calculate a maximum winding point temperature and estimate a remaining life of the transformer based on the calculated maximum winding point temperature (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations/Mental Step”).
(These limitations can be performed by mental steps using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “a transformer, in which an insulating oil and a winding are disposed; a plurality of detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer; arithmetic unit in the independent claim 13 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because relate to insignificant extra solution activity, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. a transformer, in which an insulating oil and a winding are disposed; a plurality of detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer; arithmetic unit such features were conventional, as best understood, for example US 2010/0274529 A1 discloses a transformer having an insulating oil and a winding, temperature detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer and configured to detect an upper temperature of the insulating oil at the top of the transformer and a lower temperature of the insulating oil at the bottom of the transformer in para [0098]-[0100] and arithmetic unit/computer in para [0098] and US 2021/0123797 A1 discloses a transformer having an insulating oil and a winding, temperature detectors arranged at a top of the transformer and a bottom of the transformer and configured to detect an upper temperature of the insulating oil at the top of the transformer and a lower temperature of the insulating oil at the bottom of the transformer in para [0050]. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
8. Claim 15 is 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) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “estimate the maximum winding point temperature based on a design parameter of the transformer”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 includes additional elements “the arithmetic unit” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2022/0128539 A1 discloses arithmetic unit/computer in para [0083] and US 2021/0364577 A1 discloses arithmetic unit/computer 116 in Fig. 1 para [0018].
Reason for Allowance/ Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 16-18 are allowed. Examiner’s reasons for allowance are following:
a) Applicant amended independent claims 10 and 18 and overcome rejection. Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/30/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection sent on Office Action mailed on 03/27/2026 is withdrawn.
b) Any reference does not disclose nor fairly suggest each and every claimed limitation of independent claims 10 and 18:
As to claims 10-11 and 16-17 the present invention is direct to a transformer diagnostic system comprising: Independent claim 10 identifies the uniquely distinct features of “a hydrogen detector configured to detect hydrogen dissolved in the insulating oil of the transformer; and determine, based on the upper and lower temperatures detected by the temperature detectors and based on an amount of hydrogen detected by the hydrogen detector exceeding a predetermined threshold value”.
As to claims 18 the present invention is direct to a transformer diagnostic system comprising: Independent claim 18 identifies the uniquely distinct features of “a hydrogen detector configured to detect hydrogen dissolved in the insulating oil of the transformer; calculate an average temperature of an upper part of the winding based on the average temperature difference and the upper temperature of the insulating oil, and determine, based on the upper and lower temperatures detected by the temperature detectors and based on an amount of hydrogen detected by the hydrogen detector exceeding a predetermined threshold value”.
The closest prior art, Dohi et al. (Pub NO. US 2022/0128539 A1), Kammela et al (Pub No. US 2021/0364577 A1), PARK et al. (Pub NO. US 2018/0180657 A1) teaches Method and system for Transformer Diagnosis, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious, in combination with all other claimed limitations of claims 10 and 18.
As to claims 11 and 16-17 the claims are allowed for depending on claims 10.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights