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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 and 22-27 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to Claim 7-9, 20, and 26 overcomes each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 9-14, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-20 and 22-27 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 26 detail the limitation “determining if a capture of the energy-related waveform has capturing inadequacy due to a constraint related to the functional capability of the IED based on an upper knee in the event constraint model.”
The specification details in [0129] that “Note that the partial sigmoid form/curve (which is an example event constraint model) exhibits a lower knee which resembles an exponential function, while the full sigmoid form/curve exhibits both a lower and upper knee. As is known, in mathematics, the “knee of a curve” is the point where a curve visibly bends, specifically from high slope to low slope, or in the other direction, as illustrated in FIG. 4A (known art). In accordance with embodiments of this disclosure, the above-discussed upper and lower knees are a very important indicator when analyzing the ability of a metering device to adequately/sufficiently detect and capture high-speed voltage/current events, as will be further appreciated from discussions below.”
Thus, the claim limitation “upper knee” is interpreted as it relates to mathematics as the point where a curve visibly bends, with upper knee referencing the part of the curve past the inflection point.
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 1-17, 20, 22-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. A method comprising:
capturing an energy-related waveform using an intelligent electronic device (IED) having a functional capability in an electrical system;
identifying an anomalous condition in the electrical system using electrical measurement data from the energy-related waveform;
building an event constraint model based on the identified anomalous condition;
determining if a capture of the energy-related waveform has capturing inadequacy due to a constraint related to the functional capability of the IED based on an upper knee in the event constraint model; and
taking an action to address the capturing inadequacy.
26. A system comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one memory device coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one processor and the at least one memory device configured to:
process measurement data from, or derived from an energy related waveform captured using a first intelligent electronic device (IED) having functional capability in an electrical system in real-time, pseudo-real time, or historically to identify an anomalous condition in the electrical system;
build an event constraint model based on the identified anomalous condition;
determine if a capture of the energy-related waveform has capturing inadequacy due to a constraint related to the functional capability of the first IED, based on an upper knee in the event constraint model; and
take an action to address the capturing inadequacy.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 26 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because capturing data from an intelligent electronic device is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. capturing data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The processor and memory device of Claim 26 are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a generic computer elements. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. The additional element of Claims 1 and 26 of “taking an action to address the capturing inadequacy” is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception as the claim is only reciting the idea of a solution and fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(f), the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 2-9, 16-17, 22, and 27 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10-15 and 20 detail the additional limitation of the action including communication a determination that the capture of the energy-related waveform, with claims 12-14 further detailing the communication provides actionable recommendations. Communicating outputs is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity as it is well known and the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim that is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. This is evidenced by Menon (US20210399546) in [0048] and Klien (US20140058689) in [0044]-[0047]. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010); Flook, 437 U.S. at 593-95, 198 USPQ at 197; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The additional limitation of Claim 24 of the action addressing or responding to a result of an evaluation of the data reduction is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception as the claim is only reciting the idea of a solution and fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(f), the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 18-19 and 25 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18 details the additional limitation the action automatically adjusting a parameter associated with the IED. The adjusting of a parameter associated with the IED integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 19 is dependent on Claim 18.
Claim 25 details addressing or responding to the evaluation of the data reduction by adjusting a sample rate of the first IED. Adjusting the sample rate as an action integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-17, 20, 22-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 but not under a prior art rejection (35 U.S.C. 103 or 35 U.S.C. 102).
In regards to Claims 1 and 26, Menon (US20210399546) teaches “at least one processor (processor – [0069]);
at least one memory device coupled to the at least one processor (processor with computer executable program instructions - [0069]; processor communicates with storage device that stores program – [0090]), the at least one processor and the at least one memory device configured to:
capturing an energy-related waveform using an intelligent electronic device (IED) having a functional capability in an electrical system (system, i.e. electrical system, includes one or more measurement units including PMU or DFR, i.e. intelligent electronic device, and include measurement devices to estimate the magnitude and phase angle of the voltage and current, i.e. energy-related waveform – [0027]; measurement data include power, voltage, frequency, phase angle – [0036]; disturbance data obtained from a DFR to obtain V, f, P, and Q measurement data at a point of interest, i.e. processing electrical measurement data – [0041]; receive disturbance data measured by PMUs at particular points of interest s610 – [0042], Figure 6) (the measurement data associated with disturbance event data – [0027]);
building an event constraint model based on the identified anomalous condition (power disturbance based model, i.e. event constraint model, with calibration, includes parameter identifiability analysis to provide a set of identifiable parameters to a model calibration engine, the model calibration engine receives data from disturbance events, i.e. based on identified anomalous characteristics – [0040], Figure 4; simulation [step 620] done by the model calibration unit – [0042], Figure 6; model calibration unit implements model calibration with three functionalities, where the first functionality is an event screen tool to select characteristics of disturbance event from a library of recorded event data, second functionality is a preconditioning tool for the parameter identifiability study, and the third functionality is a tool for simultaneous tuning of models using an augmented event comprised of multiple events – [0043]);
determining if a capture of the energy-related waveform has capturing inadequacy due to a constraint related to the functional capability of the IED (the simulated default model performance compared to actual disturbance data measured on the power system at step 630, and if it is outside the predetermined threshold, at step 640, the parameter identifiability algorithm performed at step 650 to determine the differing effects that various parameters can have on power system model where each parameter represents a factor/coefficient in a term of a polynomial expression representing the power system model and a parameter sensitivity study performed before the model calibration at step 660, i.e. analyzing the event constraint model – [0045]-[0046], Figure 6; Figure 7 details the model calibration detailed in step 660 – [0049]); and
taking an action to address the capturing inadequacy (at step 670 the parameter values, i.e. constraints, in the active power system model may be updated, i.e. cause adjustment, and the system generates a report and/or displays estimated parameter values, confidence metrics, and model error response versus measured data at step 680, i.e. taking one or more actions to address the hindering of the detection of information of interest – [0048], Figure 6).”
Sun (US20210293873) teaches “identifying an anomalous condition in the electrical system using electrical measurement data from the energy-related waveform (Step 130 includes identify fault type, i.e. anomalous characteristics, based on voltage and current measurements with effective values, i.e. processing electrical measurement data – [0037]; extracting dominant vibration mode from measurement waveforms and computing instantaneous and integral feature attributes at fault inception time, pre-fault and post-fault moments, i.e. anomalous characteristics – [0039], Figure 1A).”
Menon in view of Sun is silent with regards to the language of “determining if a capture of the energy-related waveform has capturing inadequacy due to a constraint related to the functional capability of the IED based on an upper knee in the event constraint model.”
Claims 2-17, 20, 22-24, and 27 are dependent on Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857