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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 10, 13 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/02/2026 regarding 101 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant argued on page 1 that “In response to this rejection, Applicant submits that claims 10-18 are directed to eligible subject matter. When read as a whole, the claims are directed to a system that improves the functionality of transformer diagnostic technology. The claims do not involve merely data manipulation steps, and the features of the claims that are additional to the abstract idea add significantly more than just the abstract idea. Rather than being insignificant extra solution activity, the transformer and temperature detectors described in claims 10, 13 and 18 are vital structural and electronic elements that are required for operation of the system. As noted above, the claims, when read as a whole, are directed to a system that improves the functionality of transformer diagnostic technology. This technological improvement is the improved accuracy of diagnosing abnormalities in transformers. See, e.g., f[0008], [0010], f[0036], and f[0042] of the specification”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s arguments Examine relied on MPEP 2106.05(a) which states “While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) for more information about evaluating improvements in Step 2A Prong Two, and MPEP § 2106.07(b) for more information about improvements in the streamlined analysis context”.
Therefore even though para [0036] and [0042] mentioned improvements includes some mathematical equation and hydrogen but claim doesn’t recite this improvements.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant argued on page 1 that “In CardioNet, claim 1 of the patent, when considered as a whole, was directed to an improved cardiac monitoring device and not to an abstract idea. Likewise, in the present application, each of claims 10, 13 and 18, when considered as a whole, is directed to an improved transformer diagnostic system and not to an abstract idea. The determination of the existence of an abnormality in the transformer based on the temperatures detected by the temperature detectors disposed in the insulating oil at particular locations of the transformer provides an improved diagnosis of abnormalities in the transformer”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s arguments Examine relied on MPEP 2106.05(a) which states “While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) for more information about evaluating improvements in Step 2A Prong Two, and MPEP § 2106.07(b) for more information about improvements in the streamlined analysis context”.
Therefore even though para [0036] and [0042] mentioned improvements includes some mathematical equation and hydrogen but claim doesn’t recite this improvements.
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 10-18 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 10, 13 and 18,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 10 is directed to system which is an apparatus and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
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 a 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 temperature difference and the upper temperature, and determine, based on the upper and lower temperatures, whether the transformer has an abnormality (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(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; 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; and an arithmetic unit” in the independent claim 10 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, 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; and an 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.
9. In Claim 13, this claim recites the same claim features as already addressed in above Claim 10, and thus this claim also raises an issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons.
10. In Claim 18, while this claim recites the same claim features as already addressed in above Claim 10, and thus this claim also raises an issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons. This claim does add a “communication equipment” and “data processing unit” but such “communication equipment” and “data processing unit” are not positively recited or required in the claim, and such a recitation does not reasonably overcome the above noted issues because a general purpose “communication equipment” and “data processing unit” has been held to recite insignificant extra-solution activity, and applicant’s “communication equipment” and “data processing unit” is not claimed to be anything more than a generic purpose computer that has an intended function of executing a function (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Also note that the use of such a “communication equipment” and “data processing unit” are also reasonably demonstrated to be conventional in US 2021/0178605 (see paragraphs [0003] including the cited reference as well as paragraph [0034] / note data processing unit/ communication equipment). US 2021/0364577 A1 discloses communication unit 116/ data processing unit in Fig. 1 para [0018].
5. Claim 11 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 11 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “to calculate a load factor based on the detected load current value”, 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 11 includes additional elements “a current detector configured to detect a load current flowing in the winding, 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 as US 2015/0180382 discloses a current detector detects the load current flowing in the winding in para [0003] and US 2015/0160631 discloses a current detector detects the load current flowing in the winding in abstract. Also 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].
6. Claim 12 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 12 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 12 includes additional elements “hydrogen detector configured to detect hydrogen in the transformer, wherein the arithmetic unit is configured to determine an abnormality exists in the transformer based on an amount of the hydrogen detected by the hydrogen detector exceeding a predetermined threshold value” 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 2020/0103391 A1 discloses hydrogen detector configured to detect hydrogen in the transformer, wherein the arithmetic unit is configured to determine an abnormality exists in the transformer based on an amount of the hydrogen detected by the hydrogen detector exceeding a predetermined threshold value in para [0058] and US 2020/0264102 discloses detection unit detects hydrogen in para [0001]; 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].
7. Claim 14 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 14 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “calculate a maximum winding point temperature, estimates a remaining life of the transformer based the calculated maximum winding point temperature”, 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 14 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].
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 a 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].
10. Claim 16 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 16 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “estimate remaining life based on the results of analyzing”, 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 16 includes additional elements “insulating paper pocket, 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 2019/0392360 discloses insulating paper pocket in para [0052], US 2018/0180657 discloses insulating paper pocket in para [0043]. Also 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].
11. Claim 17 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 17 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 17 includes additional elements “an iron core, a winding attached to the iron core and insulated by an insulating paper, wherein the iron core and the winding are immersed in the insulating oil” 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 2019/0392360 discloses an iron core, a winding attached to the iron core and insulated by an insulating paper, and an insulating oil for immersing the winding and iron core in para [0052], US 2018/0180657 discloses an iron core, a winding attached to the iron core and insulated by an insulating paper, wherein the iron core and the winding are immersed in the insulating oil in para [0043].
Conclusion
12. 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
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights