DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-10are directed to a method, claims 11-20 are directed to using a causal diagnostic system to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for monitoring and predicting issues associated in an electrical system, the method comprising:
acquiring, by at least one load diagnostic system, first data relating to a load within the electrical system monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system;
acquiring, by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED), second data relating to the electrical system, the second data comprising at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data, the at least one IED electrically connected within the electrical system nearer an electrical source thereof upstream of the load monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system;
evaluating the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system against the second data acquired by the at least one IED to identify a correlation therebetween;
evaluating the identified correlation to determine a condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED; and
taking at least one action to address the condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“acquiring, by at least one load diagnostic system, first data relating to a load within the electrical system monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“acquiring, by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED), second data relating to the electrical system, the second data comprising at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data, the at least one IED electrically connected within the electrical system nearer an electrical source thereof upstream of the load monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“evaluating the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system against the second data acquired by the at least one IED to identify a correlation therebetween” is directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“evaluating the identified correlation to determine a condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED” is directed to math because process relies on statistical analysis to turn raw data into actionable insights about electrical health.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “evaluating” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “evaluating the identified correlation to determine a condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for monitoring and predicting issues associated in an electrical system, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquiring, by at least one load diagnostic system, first data relating to a load within the electrical system monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquiring, by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED), second data relating to the electrical system, the second data comprising at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data, the at least one IED electrically connected within the electrical system nearer an electrical source thereof upstream of the load monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“evaluating the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system against the second data acquired by the at least one IED to identify a correlation therebetween” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“evaluating the identified correlation to determine a condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“taking at least one action to address the condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely gathering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and outputting the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for monitoring and predicting issues associated in an electrical system, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquiring, by at least one load diagnostic system, first data relating to a load within the electrical system monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquiring, by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED), second data relating to the electrical system, the second data comprising at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data, the at least one IED electrically connected within the electrical system nearer an electrical source thereof upstream of the load monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“evaluating the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system against the second data acquired by the at least one IED to identify a correlation therebetween” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“evaluating the identified correlation to determine a condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“taking at least one action to address the condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1 but recites a causal diagnostic system for monitoring and predicting issues associated in an electrical system, the causal diagnostic system comprising: at least one load diagnostic system coupled to a load within the electrical system, the at least one load diagnostic system acquiring first data relating to the load monitored thereby; at least one intelligent electronic device (IED) connected within the electrical system nearer an electrical source thereof upstream of the load monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system, the at least one IED acquiring second data relating to the electrical system, the second data comprising at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data; at least one processor receiving and responsive to the acquired first and second data; and at least one memory device coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory device storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor for performing the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 11 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 11.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, “wherein the first data relating to the load comprises at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, “wherein the non-energy-related data relating to the load includes one or more of an equipment characteristic, metadata information, an operational characteristic, and an external condition” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, “wherein the correlation comprises one or more of a relevant characteristic, a commonality, a trend, and an issue between the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system and the second data acquired by the at least one lED” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, “wherein the load comprises at least one of a motor, a relay, a transformer, and a capacitor bank” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, “wherein the at least one load diagnostic system comprises a condition-based monitoring (CBM) system coupled to the load” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, “evaluating, by the CBM system, one or more parameters associated with operation of the load; and learning a baseline operation of the load for use in identifying a deviation therefrom, wherein the deviation from the baseline operation of the load is indicative of a condition of the load” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, “wherein learning the baseline operation of the load comprises adjusting the baseline operation of the load as a function of the second data acquired by the at least one IED” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, “taking at least one action to address the condition of the load” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, “wherein acquiring the first data comprises aggregating the first data acquired by a plurality of load diagnostic systems, the aggregated first data relating to a plurality of loads within the electrical system each monitored by one of the plurality of load diagnostic systems” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bicket (US 2020/0013277 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bicket discloses a method for monitoring and predicting issues associated in an electrical system, the method comprising (para. 0005: method for managing voltage event alarms associated with power quality issues or events in an electrical system):
acquiring, by at least one load diagnostic system, first data relating to a load within the electrical system monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system (Fig.1A, para. 0005, 0011: capture by at least one IED of a plurality of IEDs data from energy-re!ated signals to identify an anomalous voltage condition one of the plurality of IEDs is configured to monitor one re more loads in the electrical system; a IED can be considered as a ''load diagnostic device”);
acquiring, by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED), second data relating to the electrical system, the second data comprising at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data, the at least one IED electrically connected within the electrical system nearer an electrical source thereof upstream of the load monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system (Fig.1A, para. 0005-0014: capture by at a least one IED of a plurality of IEDs data from energy-re!ated signals to identify an anomalous voltage condition);
evaluating the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system against the second data acquired by the at least one IED to identify a correlation therebetween; evaluating the identified correlation to determine a condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED (para. 0335: assessing a voltage event by using statistical evaluations from all IEDs, those determinations include correlations); and
taking at least one action to address the condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED (para. 0024: the load loss alarm may be generated, communicated, stored, … in at least one or more component or system associated with the electric system).
Regarding claim 11, Bicket discloses a causal diagnostic system comprising a processor and memory device (Fig.1A, 1B, para. 0025, 0133, 0140: processor, memory, central processing unit 140) for monitoring and predicting issues associated in an electrical system, the method comprising (para. 0005: method for managing voltage event alarms associated with power quality issues or events in an electrical system):
acquiring, by at least one load diagnostic system, first data relating to a load within the electrical system monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system (Fig.1A, para. 0005, 0011: capture by at least one IED of a plurality of IEDs data from energy-re!ated signals to identify an anomalous voltage condition one of the plurality of IEDs is configured to monitor one re more loads in the electrical system; a IED can be considered as a ''load diagnostic device”);
acquiring, by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED), second data relating to the electrical system, the second data comprising at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data, the at least one IED electrically connected within the electrical system nearer an electrical source thereof upstream of the load monitored by the at least one load diagnostic system (Fig.1A, para. 0005-0014: capture by at a least one IED of a plurality of IEDs data from energy-re!ated signals to identify an anomalous voltage condition);
evaluating the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system against the second data acquired by the at least one IED to identify a correlation therebetween; evaluating the identified correlation to determine a condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED (para. 0335: assessing a voltage event by using statistical evaluations from all IEDs, those determinations include correlations); and
taking at least one action to address the condition of the electrical system associated with the at least one IED (para. 0024: the load loss alarm may be generated, communicated, stored, … in at least one or more component or system associated with the electric system).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12-13, Bicket discloses wherein the first data relating to the load comprises at least one of energy-related data and non-energy-related data; wherein the non-energy-related data relating to the load includes one or more of an equipment characteristic, metadata information, an operational characteristic, and an external condition (para. 0041, 0188, 0229, IDE configured to sense and store operating characteristic, metadata is used for voltage tolerance curves).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Bicket discloses wherein the correlation comprises one or more of a relevant characteristic, a commonality, a trend, and an issue between the first data acquired by the at least one load diagnostic system and the second data acquired by the at least one lED (para.0310,0326: examples of supplementary metrics mentions trends in zone interruptions in electrical systems, the characteristics described are commonly used methods to characteristics data).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bicket discloses wherein the load comprises at least one of a motor, a relay, a transformer, and a capacitor bank (para. 0126: IDEs configured to monitor e.g. motors, relays, transformers).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Bicket discloses wherein the at least one load diagnostic system comprises a condition-based monitoring (CBM) system coupled to the load (para. 0127: IED provide indications of monitored parameters and detected conditions that can be used to control the load)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Bicket discloses taking at least one action to address the condition of the load (para. 0127: IED provide indications of monitored parameters and detected conditions).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Bicket discloses wherein acquiring the first data comprises aggregating the first data acquired by a plurality of load diagnostic systems, the aggregated first data relating to a plurality of loads within the electrical system each monitored by one of the plurality of load diagnostic systems (para. 0335-0337: aggregation of parameters acquired by IEDs).
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bicket et al. (US2017/0285114 A1) disclose a method for analyzing waveform capture data, the method comprising: receiving, by a controller from an intelligent electronic device, waveform capture data indicative of an electrical event; extracting, from the waveform capture data, electrical event data; extracting additional data from memory associated with the controller; classifying the waveform capture data into a category of a plurality of categories using the electrical event data; comparing the electrical event data and the additional data to stored data; diagnosing the electrical event and a cause of the electrical event based on the comparison; and providing an indication of the cause of the electrical event.
Bicket et al. (US2022/0091166 A1 A1) disclose method for monitoring energy-related data in an electrical system includes processing energy-related data from or derived from energy-related signals captured by at least one intelligent electronic device in the electrical system to identify at least one variation/change in the energy-related signals. The method also includes determining if the at least one identified variation/change meets a prescribed threshold or thresholds, and in response to the at least one identified variation/change meeting the prescribed threshold or thresholds, characterizing and/or quantifying the at least one identified variation/change. Information related to the characterized and/or quantified at least one identified variation/change is appended to time-series information associated with the energy-related data, and characteristics and/or quantities associated with the time-series information are evaluated to identify at least one potential load type associated with the characterized and/or quantified at least one identified variation/change.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights