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 08/13/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1-2, 4, 7-12 and 14-20 have been amended. And claims 3 and 13: Cancelled.
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.
Claims1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 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 claims1-2, 4-12 and 14-20falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-2 and 4-10 fall 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)); For example, each of claims 11-12 and 14-20 fall within category of process.
.
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 4-10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of to identify whether an electrical circuit is about to fail.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A predictor of a quality of an electrical installation of electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, the predictor comprising:
a monitoring system including software instructions of a central monitoring software to predict a failure of an electrical circuit based on a deteriorated resistance in the electrical circuit by connecting to a smart meter measuring the electrical circuit as well as a smart EV charger with an internal meter connected to the same electrical circuit,
wherein the monitoring system is configured to use the smart meter to measure grid characteristics at a central place with metering information in the smart EV charger behind the central place to estimate the quality of the electrical installation,
and
wherein the software instructions of the central monitoring software are configured to predict the failure of the electrical circuit by determining an original resistance of the electrical circuit between the smart meter and the smart EV charger from a voltage measured by the smart meter, a voltage measured by the internal meter of the smart EV charger, and a current flowing through the smart EV charger, as R = (Vsmart meter - Vev charaer)/I, storing the original resistance, and thereafter periodically calculating an effective resistance of the electrical circuit and comparing the effective resistance with the stored original resistance to identify a deteriorated resistance in the electrical circuit.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper, mental judgment or evaluation) and mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or formula). 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” to predict a failure of an electrical circuit [..]; to estimate the quality of the electrical installation[..], determining an original resistance of the electrical circuit[..]; periodically calculating an effective resistance of the electrical circuit and comparing [..] ” a combination of mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper, mental judgment or evaluation) and mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or formula, 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 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.
The first additional element is “wherein the monitoring system is configured to use the smart meter to measure grid characteristics at a central place with metering information in the smart EV charger behind the central place” This element appears to limit the “field of use/collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use/ data gathering/ pre-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).
The 2nd additional element is “the electrical circuit by connecting to a smart meter measuring the electrical circuit as well as a smart EV charger with an internal meter connected to the same electrical circuit”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic structure of electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure , which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The 3rd additional element is “A predictor of a quality of an electrical installation of electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, the predictor comprising: a monitoring system including software instructions of a central monitoring software”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
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 devices 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 not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
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.
For example, the limitation of Claims monitoring system, smart meter, electrical circuit ,a smart EV charger ”, generic device and generic computer component, 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 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 10 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-10 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. whenever the smart EV charger is charging, the monitoring system compares a voltage between the smart meter and the smart EV charger(extended the abstract idea which is directed to mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
4. the electrical circuit that presents a higher resistance than expected causes overheating and damage (extended the abstract idea which is directed to mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
5. the smart meter is a voltage meter and the internal meter of the smart EV charger is a voltage meter This element amounts to mere use of a generic structure of electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure , which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
6. the smart meter is a meter behind the internal meter of the smart EV charger This element amounts to mere use of a generic structure of electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure (which is field of use and well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
7. the resistance is calculated at different current levels, and at different external ambient temperatures (measured at the smart EV charger), as well different charging session durations (extended the abstract idea which is directed to mathematical concepts and/or formula ).
8. a first variant of the central monitoring software a cloud communicates to the smart meter and to the smart EV charger such as an EVSE and runs an algorithm (which is field of use and well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
9. The predictor of claim 1, wherein in a second variant of the central monitoring software a local appliance communicates to the smart meter and to the smart EV charger and runs an algorithm (which is field of use and well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
10. in a third variant of the central monitoring software a CPU of the smart EV charger communicates with the smart meter and runs an algorithm (which is field of use, generic computer component and well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 11-12 and 14 -20
Claims 11-12 and 14 -20 contains language similar to claims 1-2 and 4-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-12 and 14- -20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4- 6, 8- 12, 14-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0402849) in view of Parkin (US2018/0275199).
Regarding claim 1. Lee teaches a predictor of a quality of an electrical installation of electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, the predictor comprising([0113],[0117]-[0118],[0121]-[0122]):
a monitoring system including software instructions of a central monitoring software(370: fig. 3B) to monitoring in the electrical circuit by connecting to a smart meter measuring the electrical circuit(363: fig. 3B; [0112]-[0114], [0122]), as well as a smart EV charger with an internal meter connected to the same electrical circuit(365: fig. 3B; [0121]-[0123]),
wherein the monitoring system is configured (370: fig. 2; [0104]-[0107])to use the smart meter to measure grid characteristics at a central place([0112]-[0114], [0122]) with metering information in the smart EV charger behind the central place to estimate the quality of the electrical installation([0112]-[0114], [0122]), and
Lee silent about to predict a failure of an electrical circuit based on a deteriorated resistance and wherein the software instructions of the central monitoring software are configured to predict the failure of the electrical circuit by determining an original resistance of the electrical circuit between the smart meter and the smart EV charger from a voltage measured by the smart meter, a voltage measured by the internal meter of the smart EV charger, and a current flowing through the smart EV charger, as R = (Vsmart meter - Vev charaer)/I, storing the original resistance, and thereafter periodically calculating an effective resistance of the electrical circuit and comparing the effective resistance with the stored original resistance to identify a deteriorated resistance in the electrical circuit.
However, Parkin teaches to predict a failure of an electrical circuit based on a deteriorated resistance (abstract; [0239]-[0248]) and wherein the software instructions of the central monitoring software are configured to predict the failure of the electrical circuit by determining an original resistance of the electrical circuit between the smart meter and the smart EV charger from a voltage measured by the smart meter, a voltage measured by the internal meter of the smart EV charger, and a current flowing through the smart EV charger, as R = (Vsmart meter - Vev charaer)/I, storing the original resistance, and thereafter periodically calculating an effective resistance of the electrical circuit and comparing the effective resistance with the stored original resistance to identify a deteriorated resistance in the electrical circuit([0239]-[0248]; [0278]-[0279]; fig. 3; “PQ-Node@ source” to be “smart meter” and “PQ-Node@ load” to be “ev charger”; “Dynamic Resistance” to be “original resistance”; “Derive the average resistance or the standard deviation for the measured resistance samples for that time period” to be “effective resistance”; fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Lee, predict a failure of an electrical circuit based on a deteriorated resistance and wherein the software instructions of the central monitoring software are configured to predict the failure of the electrical circuit by determining an original resistance of the electrical circuit between the smart meter and the smart EV charger from a voltage measured by the smart meter, a voltage measured by the internal meter of the smart EV charger, and a current flowing through the smart EV charger, as R = (Vsmart meter - Vev charaer)/I, storing the original resistance, and thereafter periodically calculating an effective resistance of the electrical circuit and comparing the effective resistance with the stored original resistance to identify a deteriorated resistance in the electrical circuit, as taught by Parkin, so as to maintain power quality node in the power supply circuit.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12. Parkin further teaches whenever the smart EV charger is charging, the monitoring system compares a voltage between the smart meter and the smart EV charger([0239]-[0248]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14. Parkin further teaches the electrical circuit that presents a higher resistance than expected causes overheating and damage ([0181], [0286]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15. Parkin further teaches the smart meter is a voltage meter and the internal meter of the smart EV charger is a voltage meter([0080]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16. Lee further teaches the smart meter is a meter behind the internal meter of the smart EV charger(363, 365).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18. Lee further teaches in a first variant of the central monitoring software a cloud communicates to the smart meter and to the smart EV charger and runs an algorithm (IOT: [0115], [0131]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19. Lee further teaches in a second variant of the central monitoring software a local appliance communicates(380: fig. 4B) to the smart meter(363: fig. 4A) and to the smart EV charger (365: fig. 4B) and runs an algorithm ([0252]; fig. 6; [0100]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20. Lee further teaches in a third variant of the central monitoring software a CPU of the smart EV charger communicates with the smart meter and runs an algorithm([0121]-[0122]; [0252]; 550: fig. 13; [0100]).
Examiner Notes
There is no prior art rejection over claims 7 and 17, however there is 101 rejection. The closets prior arts fail to teach the limitations of claims 7 and 17, e.g. “ the resistance is calculated at different current levels, and at different external ambient temperatures, as well different charging session durations”.
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 11 represent abstract idea of a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental steps. Therefore, the limitations, specifically claims1 and 11, 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 recites 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). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 102 rejection, specially claims 1and 13 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection made over amended limitation based on newly cited prior art, see the updated rejection above.
.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 20230147123: new value of loaded resistance is calculated and compared to a threshold value. The threshold value may be a fraction and/or a multiple of the referenced loaded resistance value, a user input parameter, a default value stored in memory 122, and/or a combination thereof. If the new value exceeds the threshold value, continue to block 306, otherwise return to block 305. The loop of repeating block 305 may be exited when processor 105 detects a change in input current and/or voltage drop and calculates returns to block 300 to calculate a new loaded resistance value.
b) US 20250115150: a charging authentication method and system configured to authenticate a power transfer interface between a power source and at least one device to facilitate a wired and/or wireless charging subscription associated with a user, user device, server device, vehicle, mobility device, and/or charging source, a flow of power and/or a stream of data. The charging subscription may enable a device to receive a charge or power from another device and/or power source if the device or a user thereof has a valid subscription associated with the other device and/or power sourc
c) US 20240408990 : A system can include a controller. The controller can receive a signal from a charger that indicates a voltage drop in a voltage received by the charger from a power supply. The controller can operate the power supply to increase the voltage output by the power supply responsive to the signal that indicates the voltage drop.
d) US 20230398890: A mobile terminal functioning as a display device includes a first acquisition unit that acquires a first schedule indicating a time period in which charging or discharging of the power storage device is scheduled, a second acquisition unit that acquires a second schedule indicating a time period in which a demand response requesting charging or discharging of the power storage device is scheduled, and a display unit that displays a schedule window. The display unit simultaneously displays the first schedule and the second schedule on the schedule screen in an identifiable manner.
e) US 20220072973: a schematic configuration of the electric power system.
f) US 20210394638: R CABLE,LOW=(U2−U3)/I LOAD
g) US 20170088001: The power supply 208 may be coupled to the load center 206, which is in turn coupled to the smart meter device 210. The smart meter device 210 is coupled to the load center 206 to provide electricity to the smart EVSE 202. The smart meter device 210 may include a communication capability adapted to communicate with the smart EVSE 202. The smart meter device 210 may be coupled to the power grid 209. The smart EVSE 202 is configured to interface with the smart meter device 210 to obtain a total power value..
.
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