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 based on the guidance provided in the Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “2019 PEG”) (See Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019).
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility test, independent claim 1 for example describes an abstract idea of monitoing a current on a bus coupled to the high voltage power supply. The limitations that describe the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
1. A DC power transmitter for use in a class 4 power system, the DC power transmitter comprising:
a high voltage power supply;
a current sensing circuit configured to monitor a current on a bus coupled to the high voltage power supply;
a safety controller configured to monitor an output of the current sensing circuit to control a switch for regulating a power output of the high voltage power supply;
a communication interface for receiving a communication signal from the safety controller;
a band pass filter configured to receive the communication signal from the communication interface and transmit the communication signal over a transmission line; and
a band stop filter configured to receive the power output from the high voltage power supply and transmit the power output over the transmission line.
The limitations indicated above fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because such described preventive a safety control activities pertain to activities that a business relies upon to control their operations and fulfill business obligations. This is supported by Applicant’s specification which indicates the invention is for “fault detection and management” (see paragraphs [0022] and [0025] of the original specification). Applicant’s specification further indicates the context of the claim with respect to fulfilling how to monitor current of high power supply and control a power output of high power supply to clients remotely power their devices to utilize better safety levels and power efficiency (see paragraphs [0021], [0027], [00105]). Therefore, steps of safety control in order to provide a product or service to a client is an activity considered similar to other concepts identified within the sub-groupings of commercial interactions with respect to sales activities and business relations, managing interactions between people (such as a relationship between business/provider and customer), and mitigating risk. For example, the preventive safety control activities are in furtherance of completing sales activities and maintaining business relations. Also, a purpose of preventive management is mitigating the risk that resources, relied upon to fulfill a business’ obligations to customers, do not fail. The claim also includes limitations that fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mental processes. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it is still in the mental processes category. For example, with the telephone unit and server in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted that even though a claim may recite concrete, tangible components, these components do not exclude the claim from the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)).
For Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a current sensing circuit, a safety controller, a communication interface, a band pass filter, and a band stop filter to implement the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea that includes existing processes such as receive, output, and transmit data. See MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool. These additional elements do not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., execution on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Use of the processor and machine learning in the claim at such a high level of generality does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field as merely instructing to apply the abstract idea with a generic computer and unspecified generic machine learning does not render a claim eligible. As explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Also, the storage system, for storing information that is evaluated as part of the abstract idea, and sensor, for providing information this is observed and evaluated as part of the abstract idea, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity based on MPEP 2106.05(g) with respect to data gathering. Such storing and gathering of data by a storage system and sensor amount to invoking a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform existing processes of receiving, storing and transmitting data based on MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The recitation of “sensor” amounts to using a sensor in its ordinary expected capacity to provide data with no further details to convey a specific improvement with respect to the sensor or sensor technology to overcome a problem in such technology/technical field or others which is in contrast to the sensor technology addressed in Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, the generic computer elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not reflect integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea, generally linking to a field of use or particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s originally filed specification (see paragraphs [0045], [0063], [[0117],[0118] regarding processing hardware, paragraphs [0046], [0048] regarding sensing circuits and paragraphs [0082] and [0083] regarding storage) supports this conclusion with its disclosure of general purpose computers and components to perform the abstract idea. For the sensing data and storage considered insignificant extra-solution activity with respect to data gathering in Step 2A Prong Two, this has been reevaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Symantec, OIP Techs., and buySAFE (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) which convey that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network (as is presumed with a sensor) is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Also, such storing (and presumably retrieving although not claimed) are well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. and OIP Techs (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Also, a computer or processor invoked to make calculations and predictions is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself as they recite no more than routine steps involving generic computer components and conventional computer data processing activities.
Dependent claims 2-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yu et al. (USP 9,906,143) disclose systems and methods may be implemented in a manner to achieve one or more of the following benefits over conventional power supply design. For example, the disclosed systems and methods may be implemented for an external power supply (e.g., such as an external AC/DC adapter) with relatively simple circuitry to meet the UL LPS standard in a safety single fault environment while saving cost. As such the disclosed systems and methods may be implemented in a manner that saves system fabrication cost since it does not require use of flammable plastic material that houses a LPS circuit. In another example, the UL LPS safety requirements may be met for an external power supply at variable output voltage and at a relatively very narrow output power range in a manner that is not possible with conventional adapter design, e.g., so as to allow a true 90 Watt power output adapter to be provided without risk of exceeding the 100 VA UL LPS safety limit. In yet another example, current sense resistor (Rsense) verification may be integrated into a power supply to identify an incorrectly-sized or defective current sense resistor (e.g., such as identification of a faulty or incorrect Rsense value) so as to enhance power supply reliability. In this regard, identification of Rsense resistance value may be used, for example, to check safe operation at a single fault condition. In a further example, functionality of the disclosed systems and methods may be combined or integrated with a power delivery (PD) application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to realize further cost savings. Moreover, the disclosed systems and methods may be implemented with any power supply unit (PSU) topology, such as forward converter/fly-back converter, etc..
Lambert et al. (US 11,251,695) disclose systems and methods for distributing power in a power-to-the-edge system architecture are provided. In one embodiment, a system comprises an intelligent power switch configured to couple to a power supply, wherein the intelligent power switch outputs a first differential voltage output; and a plurality of intelligent remote nodes each comprising a management microcontroller (MCU) and a DC-to-DC converter. The intelligent remote nodes each receive the differential voltage output, and are communicatively coupled to a data network. The intelligent power switch comprises a processor executing an intelligent start-up control and switching function and an electrical fault detection function. The intelligent power switch outputs the differential voltage at a first voltage level while the electrical fault detection function monitors the differential voltage output. Based on results of monitoring at the first voltage level, the intelligent power switch switches the output to a second voltage level higher than the first voltage level.
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