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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 18, 2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on April 18, 2024 is objected to because of the following minor clarity issue. Figs. 1-3, the units should be labeled as to their function for better illustration.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-15: the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A power loss detector for an aircraft galley, the aircraft galley comprising a power supply and an aircraft galley load, the power supply configured to supply DC power to an aircraft galley load, the power loss detector comprising:
a voltage sensor configured to determine an initial voltage of the power supply and a subsequent voltage of the power supply; and
a controller configured to determine from the initial voltage and the subsequent voltage a voltage change, the controller configured to determine a power loss in the event that the voltage change exceeds a voltage change threshold.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " determine an initial voltage of the power supply and a subsequent voltage of the power supply; and …determine from the initial voltage and the subsequent voltage a voltage change, …to determine a power loss in the event that the voltage change exceeds a voltage change threshold”. These limitations could be carried out as purely mental process (at least in some relatively small sample situations, like determining voltage values using a volt meter and observing the change in the voltage values to compare to a threshold values). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical/computational concepts at Prong I of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of "a power loss detector, aircraft galley, a voltage sensor and a controller”; however, these additional elements are merely citing a generic computer processing elements, like a controller, and generic electrical parameter measurement devices, like voltage sensor” that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea noted in Prong I. These additional elements do not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
As stated above, the voltage sensor and the controller that are invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea, which do not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: comparing the voltage changes to a threshold and describing what the event would signify. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim characterizes “determining a power loss by comparing the voltage change to a threshold” as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 15 is directed to a method and is analogous to claim 1, is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2-6: the instant claims are directed to the characterization of the measured voltage values by the voltage sensor and are considered the part of data gathering at a highest level of generality and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 7: the instant claim is directed to determining of value of the change in voltage as to compare to the threshold value, and graceful shut down in the power loss event indicates that it would have been observed by an ordinary skill in the art where a power shut off would follow, say to conserve the battery source etc. and are considered data analysis, gathering and an action to follow.
Dependent claims 8-14: the instant claims are directed to characterization of those voltage values as related an aircraft galley and specifically to power systems, power loss detectors and power supplies in generic terms and do not provide a significantly more than the abstract idea, meaning determining power loss by comparing change in voltage value against a threshold value.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostyn et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,855,722, hereon Mostyn) in view of Freitag et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,018,521, hereon Freitag).
In reference to claim 1: Mostyn discloses a power loss detector (see Mostyn, Abstract), the power loss detector comprising:
a voltage sensor (see Mostyn, Fig. 3a, and 3b) configured to determine an initial voltage of the power supply and a subsequent voltage of the power supply (see Mostyn, Figs. 1a-1c; and 2a-2c); and
a controller configured to determine from the initial voltage and the subsequent voltage a voltage change, the controller configured to determine a power loss in the event that the voltage change exceeds a voltage change threshold (see Mostyn, column 5, lines 28-64).
However, Mostyn is silent about an aircraft galley, the aircraft galley comprising a power supply and an aircraft galley load, the power supply configured to supply DC power to an aircraft galley load.
The “aircraft galley” is an intended use of among so many examples where a momentary voltage is used to detect power failure in a system. For instance, Freitag discloses power and data distribution module and method for power and data distribution in an aircraft galley and other areas (see Freitag, column 4, lines 43-46, and column 7, lines 7-13), this module provides power to aircraft galley in DC/AC form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the power loss detector as taught by Mostyn, and incorporate an aircraft galley application with power supply and an aircraft gally load [that include] power supply configured to supply DC power to an aircraft galley load as described in Freitag for the purposes of finding alternative or redundant power source in case of power outage or a primary source because applications to aircraft galley require essential power continuation in case of emergency so that basic functions or services would be handled in a more efficient way.
With regard to claim 2: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the voltage sensor is configured to measure an initial series of voltages of the power supply across an initial time period, wherein the voltage sensor is configured to determine the initial voltage from the initial series of voltages (see Mostyn, Fig. 4b, modes a, s, and d).
With regard to claim 3: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the voltage sensor is configured to determine the initial voltage as an average of the voltages of the initial series of voltages because in Mostyn deals with the derivative which is the limit of the average rate of change as time intervals shrink to zero while the average rate measures the total change over the gap, therefore, an ordinary skill in the art would have considered both approaches in order to determine the initial voltage as an averages of the voltages (see Mostyn, column 8, lines 5-38).
With regard to claim 4: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the initial time period has a duration of at least 1 second because Mostyn operates in milliseconds and at least one second is achievable (see Mostyn, column 1, lines 45-56).
With regard to claim 5: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the voltage sensor is configured to measure a single voltage of the power supply and determine the subsequent voltage as the single voltage (see Mostyn, Fig. 1a-1b; and 2a-2b).
With regard to claim 6: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the voltage change threshold is a proportion of the initial voltage (see Mostyn, column 6, lines 20-53).
With regard to claim 7: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the controller is configured to control a load of the aircraft galley to perform a graceful shutdown in response to the power loss event being determined (see Mostyn, column 7, lines 28-46; and Freitag, column 3, lines 59-67).
In reference to claim 8. Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that an aircraft galley load comprising the power loss detector according to claim 1. (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 9: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the power system comprising the power supply, the power supply configured to supply DC power to the aircraft galley load (see Freitag, column 4, lines 26-35).
With regard to claim 10: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the aircraft galley load is a kitchen appliance (see Freitag, column 4, lines 43-46, by definition, aircraft galley is the kitchen area).
With regard to claim 11: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the aircraft galley power system comprising the power loss detector according to claim 1 and the power supply, the power supply configured to supply DC power to the aircraft galley load (see the explanation in reference to claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 12: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the aircraft galley comprising the aircraft galley load (see Freitag, column 4, lines16-25).
With regard to claim 13: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the aircraft galley comprising the aircraft galley power system (see Freitag, column 4, lines 7-15, and Fig. 3, power and data distribution module).
With regard to claim 14: Mostyn in view of Freitag further discloses that the aircraft comprising the aircraft galley (see Freitag, column 4, lines 43-46).
In reference to claim 15: Mostyn discloses a method of detecting a power loss (see Mostyn, Abstract), the method comprising:
determining an initial voltage of the power supply and a subsequent voltage of the power supply (see Mostyn, Figs. 1a-1c; and 2a-2c; and Fig. 3a, and 3b); and
determining from initial voltage and subsequent voltage a voltage change, and determine a power loss in the event that the voltage change exceeds a voltage change threshold (see Mostyn, column 5, lines 28-64).
However, Mostyn is silent about detecting power loss of a power supply in an aircraft galley power system.
The “aircraft galley” is an intended use of among so many examples where a momentary voltage is used to detect power failure in a system. For instance, Freitag discloses power and data distribution module and method for power and data distribution in an aircraft galley and other areas (see Freitag, column 4, lines 43-46, and column 7, lines 7-13), this module provides power to aircraft galley in DC/AC form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the power loss detector as taught by Mostyn, and incorporate an aircraft galley application with power supply and an aircraft gally load [that include] power supply configured to supply AC/DC power to an aircraft galley load as described in Freitag for the purposes of finding alternative or redundant power source in case of power outage or a primary source because applications to aircraft galley require essential power continuation in case of emergency so that basic functions or services would be handled in a more efficient way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Carton et al. (U.S. Patent No.11,914,002) discloses an electrical installation comprising a monitoring module positioned between a sensor connected to a measurement cable and first and second supply cables for the sensor. The monitoring module comprises a first transistor comprising first and second power electrodes and a control electrode, the first and the second power electrodes of the first transistor being electrically connected to the second supply cable and to the measurement cable, respectively, so that when the first transistor is in the closed state thereof, a first fault value is generated on the measurement cable.
Channegowda et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,874,318) discloses systems and methods for health monitoring and fault detection in power distribution networks are provided. Aspects include providing a first power supply coupled to a power channel, providing a load coupled to the power channel, providing a transmitting sensor coupled to the power channel between the first power supply and the load, providing a receiving sensor coupled to the power channel between the transmitting sensor and the load, operating the transmitting sensor to provide an AC test signal to the power channel, the AC test signal comprises a predefined test signal pattern, operating the receiving sensor to sense, from the power channel, a continuous power signal including the AC test signal, analyzing, by the controller, the AC test signal to determine a fault of the power channel based on comparing the predefined test signal pattern with a predefined nominal probe signal pattern corresponding to a specific network configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights