DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/10/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claim 1 has been amended. And claims 16-18: added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in claims, specifically claims 16 and 17 e.g. “breaking the circuit with a circuit breaker based on the detected state for the time period between successive state transitions(claim 16) and the state is indicative of an operating state of the electrical component; and repairing the electrical component based on the detected state(claim 17)”, the closest paragraph of disclosure disclose “The non-appearance of a particular state may indicate a component malfunction, or changes in the time before a particular state appears may indicate degradation of a component—the segments may thus be used to assist in a repair process, or to indicate that servicing is necessary. Where the load is actually an aggregate of different loads, specific states may indicate particular loads or combinations of loads being active.”, see [0043] of current application PgPub. The specification does not demonstrate that “breaking the circuit with a circuit breaker based on the detected state and repairing the electrical component based on the detected state” and applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, i.e. about to fail. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.". For Examining purpose, the Examiner considered such limitations are well understood, routine and conventional activity(post solution).
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “a detection element (claim 13)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description disclose the corresponding structure as processor and detection method described below may be performed in an electrical component with an appropriate processor and firmware, or readings from the detection element may be transmitted to an appropriately configured computing apparatus either locally or remotely, [0036] of current application PgPub .
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-18 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-12 and 16-18 fall within category of process and claims 13-15 within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
.
Regarding Claims 1-12 and 18
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is detecting states of an electrical load.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method of detecting states of an electrical load from an electrical signal, comprising:
providing a mathematical model for the electrical signal;
using a sliding window to estimate parameters of the model, wherein a plurality of windows are determined for the electrical signal, a window function is applied for each of the windows, and parameters of the model are determined by interpolation;
reconstructing the waveform from the determined parameters and subtracting the reconstructed waveform from the original signal to obtain a residual signal;
determining a state transition where the residual exceeds a threshold; and detecting a state as existing for the time period between successive state transitions..
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “providing a mathematical model [..]; using a sliding window to estimate parameters of the model[..]; reconstructing the waveform from the determined parameters and subtracting the reconstructed waveform from the original signal to obtain a residual signal; determining a state transition [..]; and detecting a state [..]” are mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).see, [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0042] of current application PgPub.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 18
Dependent claims 2-12 and 18 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-12 and 18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples,
2. the mathematical model is a sinusoidal model comprising a fundamental frequency and harmonics of the fundamental frequency(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
3. the window function is a Rife-Vincent window function(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
4. the Rife-Vincent window function is a Class 1 Rife-Vincent Window function(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
5. the Class 1 Rife-Vincent Window function is of order 6 or greater(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
6. the residual signal exceeding a threshold involves determining whether the root mean square value of the residual signal exceeds the threshold value(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
7. the method further comprises sampling the electrical signal into a buffer, and applying the sliding window to the buffer(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
8. emptying the buffer when a state transition is detected (extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
9. A method of monitoring an electrical system, comprising(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept):
detecting states of an electrical load from an electrical signal according to the method of any of claims 1(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept); and
comparing the states of the electrical load with expected states of the electrical load (extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
10. the states of the electrical load with expected states of the electrical load comprises determining the presence or absence of states of the electrical load(extended the abstract idea as mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment)).
11. comprising the states of the electrical load with expected states of the electrical load comprises determining times at which one or more states of the electrical load are present (extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
12. determination of a fault in the electrical system from comparing the states of the electrical load with expected states of the electrical load (extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
18. automatically segmenting the electrical signal into a plurality of data segments corresponding to respective operating states of the electrical load, each data segment being bounded by state-transition events(extended the abstract idea as mathematical concept).
Regarding Claims 13-15
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 13 is detecting states of an electrical load.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
13. An electrical device comprising a detection element for detecting values of an electrical signal passing through the electrical device, wherein the electrical device is adapted for use in the method of claim 1.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “a detection element for detecting values of an electrical signal passing through the electrical device and detecting a state [..] and for use in the method of claim 1 ” are mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 12 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The only additional element is “An electrical device” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the “additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 13 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claims “An electrical device”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 14-15
Dependent claims 14-15 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 10 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 14-15 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples,
14. the electrical device is an electrical appliance, and wherein detected states are states of the electrical appliance(generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d))).
15. the electrical device is a circuit breaker generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Regarding claim 16
Exemplary claim 16 is detecting states of an electrical load.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
16. A method of controlling a circuit based on detected states of an electrical load from an electrical signal, the method comprising:
providing a mathematical model for the electrical signal;
using a sliding window to estimate parameters of the model, wherein a plurality of windows are determined for the electrical signal, a window function is applied for each of the windows, and parameters of the model are determined by interpolation;
reconstructing a waveform from the determined parameters and subtracting the reconstructed waveform from the original signal to obtain a residual signal;
determining a state transition where the residual exceeds a threshold;
detecting a state as existing for the time period between successive state transitions;
and breaking the circuit with a circuit breaker based on the detected state for the time period between successive state transitions.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “providing a mathematical model [..]; using a sliding window to estimate parameters of the model[..]; reconstructing the waveform from the determined parameters and subtracting the reconstructed waveform from the original signal to obtain a residual signal; determining a state transition [..]; and detecting a state [..]” are mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).see, [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0042] of current application PgPub.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 16 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional element is “controlling a circuit based on detected states of an electrical load from an electrical signal; breaking the circuit with a circuit breaker based on the detected state for the time period between successive state transitions” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant post-solution activity and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the above, the “additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 16 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Regarding claim 17
Claim 17 contain language similar to claims 1 and16 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). Furthermore, the additional element “the state is indicative of an operating state of the electrical component; and
repairing the electrical component based on the detected state” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant post-solution activity and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In view of the above, the “additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims 1 and 16 however there are 101 and 112 rejections.
Closest prior art fail to teach the limitations of “providing a mathematical model for the electrical signal; using a sliding window to estimate parameters of the model, wherein a plurality of windows are determined for the electrical signal, a window function is applied for each of the windows, and parameters of the model are determined by interpolation; reconstructing a waveform from the determined parameters and subtracting the reconstructed waveform from the original signal to obtain a residual signal; determining a state transition where the residual exceeds a threshold”
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 5-6. Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to an abstract idea; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the current claim limitations, specifically , claims 1 and 16 represent abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claims1 and 16, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that a streamlined analysis applies as to improve the operation of a technological system and therefore the claims are patent eligible (see pages 5-6). This argument is unpersuasive. For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners are permitted to utilize a streamlined eligibility analysis when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether an applicant seeks patent coverage for a judicial exception, the full eligibility analysis is required. In the instant case, a full eligibility analysis is applied using the two-part framework which results in a conclusion of ineligibility as outlined in the rejection below. see MPEP 2106.06.
As such 101 rejection is maintained.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US20210247751: A diagnosis device (10) includes an acquirer (101) and a diagnoser (140). The acquirer (101) acquires a series of input values as an input signal to be diagnosed as to presence or absence of abnormality. The diagnoser (140) diagnoses the presence or absence of the abnormality from (i) a first index value indicating a distance between an input vector and a predetermined first reference vector, the input vector having components that are the input values of the series acquired by the acquirer (101), and (ii) a second index value indicating an angle between the input vector and a predetermined second reference vector.
b) Andria et al. (Windows and Interpolation Algorithms to Improve Electrical Measurement Accuracy, 1989).
c) US 2021/0367502: An electrical load controller for controlling conduction of a supply of alternating current (AC) power to a load, the supply of AC power having an AC waveform, the AC waveform oscillating though full cycles, each full cycle comprising a positive half cycle and a negative half cycle of the AC waveform, the electrical load controller comprising: a line input terminal and a load output terminal, the line input terminal configured to be electrically coupled to a supply of AC power, and the load output terminal configured to be electrically coupled to a load; a switching circuit electrically coupled in series between the line input terminal and the load output terminal, the switching circuit having an ON state in which the switching circuit conducts the supply of AC power to the load, and an OFF state in which the switching circuit does not conduct the supply of AC power to the load; and a controller, the controller configured to perform a method comprising: detecting zero-crossings of the AC waveform; determining, using the detected zero-crossings, a plurality of periods, each period corresponding to a full cycle of the AC waveform; determining a frequency of the AC waveform based on the determined plurality of periods of the full cycles of the AC waveform; and controlling the supply of AC power to the load based on the determined frequency of the AC waveform, wherein the controlling uses the determined frequency to fire the switching circuit of the electrical load controller in a plurality of half cycles of the AC waveform to selectively control the switching circuit to conduct the AC power to the load.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights