DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after Non-Final rejection received on July 27, 2026. Claim(s) 1-5, 9 and 10 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application is a 371 Continuation of PCT/CN2023/106821 filed on July 11, 2023, which claims foreign priority to CN 202310754479.7 filed on June 25, 2023.
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
The Examiner notes there are no amendments to the claims in the response on July 27, 2026.
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 1-5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method for calculating carbon emissions of a power transformer which constitutes a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent device Claim 9 and product Claim 10. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
by the processor of the electronic device, extracting operation data of the oil-immersed power transformer from a power grid information management system; the operation data comprising: three phase (a, b, c) voltage effective values Ua, Ub, Uc and corresponding voltage waveforms, three-phase current effective values Ia, Ib, Ic and corresponding current waveforms, and three-phase power factors cos φa , cos φb , cos φc;
by the processor of the electronic device, determining input parameters according to the operating data; wherein the input parameters comprise: a load power P of the oil-immersed power transformer, a three-phase current balance ε, and a harmonic distortion rate THD;
obtaining a top oil temperature Trop of the oil-immersed power transformer;
by the processor of the electronic device, determining an average temperature Twnd and a temperature correction coefficient Kemp of a winding of the oil-immersed power transformer according to the top oil temperature Ttop;
by the processor of the electronic device, determining an electrical energy loss S of the oil-immersed power transformer based on the input parameters, the average temperature Twnd, and the temperature correction coefficient Kemp; and
by the processor of the electronic device, determining the carbon emission G of the oil-immersed power transformer with a preset time period based on the electrical energy loss S of the oil-immersed transformed and in combination with a carbon emission factor of a power grid, and providing the carbon emission G of the oil-immersed power transformer with the preset time period as reference for analysis and reduction of carbon emission of the oil-immersed power transformer.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mathematical Concepts”. Obtaining and determining the values for voltage, current, power factor, load, three phase balance, THD, temperature, temperature coefficient, energy loss, and carbon emission to be put into one or more equations recites mathematical formulas or equations and calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The device including a memory, one or a plurality of processors in Claim 9 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions when executed by an electronic device in Claim Z appears to be just software. Claims 9 and 10 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Obtaining and determining the values for voltage, current, power factor, load, three phase balance, THD, temperature, temperature coefficient, energy loss, and carbon emission to be put into one or more equations recites mathematical formulas or equations and calculations. But for the “processor of a device”, “information management system”, and “oil-immersed transformer” language, the claim encompasses a person collecting operation data from the transformer and using input parameters to calculate carbon emission over a time period using his/her mind and/or pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of data collection and calculation by a processor and image input from a robot does not take the claims out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The device including a memory and one or a plurality of processors in Claim 9 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions when executed by an electronic device in Claim Z appears to be just software. Claims 9 and 10 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a device with a processor, an information management system, and an oil-transformer (Claim 1) a memory and at least a processor (claim 9) and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions when executed by an electronic device (Claim 10). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0061] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [The electronic device includes a memory and one or a plurality of processor(s)coupled with the memory; wherein the memory stores a computer program code, the computer program code includes a computer instruction.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-5 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and thus correspond to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-5 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-5, 9, and 10 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants remarks begin on page 2 of the response on July 27, 2026. The Applicant begins with traversal of the rejection and submits arguments for eligibility.
The Applicant begins the argument with Step One stating that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception if, as a whole, they are directed to a non-abstract application.
Further, the argument includes that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, rather they are a specific technical solution for analyzing and reducing carbon emissions for an oil-immersed transformer, implemented by an electronic device comprising a processor (remarks page 2). Applicant states the claim is not merely a mathematical formula, but a series of technical operations performed by a processor to achieve accurate estimation of emissions and suppression of energy loss on the transformer during its operation stage.
The Examiner disagrees with the argument as Step One clearly states whether the claim is one of the four statutory categories. It’s a yes or no answer and from Step One there is no direct path to eligibility. At this point the argument of “as a whole” is misplaced in Step One.
Additionally, the technical operations the applicant is rrelying onis not more than use of an electronic device to collect the operating data, analyze it to determine parameters and average temperature, and perform a calculation of energy loss and carbon emission using mathematical equations. These technical operations are not more than the collect and analyze steps outlined in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S. A. The use of a computer to perform mathematical calculations and functions is not more than use of a computer as a tool to perform the otherwise abstract idea. Further, PTAB concluded relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible OIP Technologies, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.
The arguments move to the contention that the claimed method addresses a specific technical problem in the power industry. The arguments cite the key to reducing carbon emission form a power transformer lies in effective suppression (remarks page 3).
Further, the Applicant states the method is implemented using an electronic device with a processor for rapid accurate estimation of carbon emissions in a power transformer within a preset time period, thereby enabling effective suppression (remarks page 3). The argument also states that the conventional approach cannot achieve rapid and accurate estimation of the carbon emissions within a preset time period (one day) and thus are not timely.
The arguments are not convincing. The Applicants are arguing calculation of carbon emissions for suppression thereof but fails include any such suppression mechanism in the claims. The disclosure only states that effective suppression of energy loss during operation as part of the background paragraph [0005]. The Drawings further do not discuss any suppression mechanism weather automatic or manual and does not support more than the calculation, which in fact is an estimation, of the carbon emission. The collection of data and use of one or more mathematical formulas and equations for estimating carbon emission is an abstract concept.
The Examiner has also cited OIP Technologies, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. already, which PTAB has asserted that relying on computers to perform routing tasks more quickly and accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.
The arguments proceed to the alleged technical improvements over the conventional techniques (remarks page 4) including accurate and rapid estimation, refined accounting of carbon emissions, and practical application for energy loss suppression.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that an electronic device is extracting operation data of a power grid information system to achieve rapid accurate estimation which was not possible with manual approaches. The determined energy loss is refined and more accurate than conventional methods, The carbon emission calculation over a time period is practical and enables an operator to take timely and effective measure to suppress energy loss.
The arguments are not persuasive and further display that the claims are an abstract concept. The extraction of operating data and analysis thereof is the same as the first two steps of MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where accurate estimation of the carbon emission is performed through mathematical calculation covered by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701.
Additionally, the refined determination for energy loss is simply a revision of the mathematical formula or equation to calculate the energy loss. This is confirmed with the idea of comprehensive consideration of multiple factors such as average temperature, temperature correction coefficient, harmonic distortion, and copper and iron losses. An improved formula for estimating a result is not indicative of practical application, rather it is simply a mathematical calculation. Additionally, performing one or more of the steps including collecting the data, cleaning the data, and performing the calculation using a computer or electronic device with a processor is more use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea that practical application.
The position that the calculation is then used to enable an operator to take timely and effective measures relates to certain methods of organizing human activity and managing personal behavior. Either the operator has to use his own judgement, observation, and opinion on how and what to do for effective suppression, which constitutes mental processes. Or the system is giving direction on how to suppress the carbon emissions and energy loss which is simply providing instructions to be followed. Neither of which pivot the invention into eligibility in the analysis.
The arguments move to the position that technical improvements demonstrate that the claims improve functioning of a power transformer system and address a real problem. Applicant further cites Enfish (improvements in computer function) and McRO (mathematical models improve technological processes).
The Examiner does not agree with the arguments. First, the claims in Enfish were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database. This was a new type of database which had not been seen or used before. In this case there is not new features of computer hardware elements. Enfish is not analogous.
Second, the arguments for McRO, they are not persuasive. The courts examined the specification which described the invention of improving computer animation through the use of specific rules rather than human artists. Additionally, the counts indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in the computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process”, unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
The arguments state that the claimed methods does not involve mental process or human intervention. Specifically, the Applicant cites the Office Action assertion that extracting information from the power grid and obtaining oil temperatures through human participation (Remarks page 5).
Applicant argues that the claim recites “by the processor of the electronic device” to automatically collect and store operational data of the transformer and for this reason the data extraction process does not involve human mental activity.
Also, the argument of “obtaining a top oil temperature of the transformer” is performed through automated means. Specifically, the Applicant points to the specification as “top oil temperature can be obtained through an electric power inspection robot by performing image acquisition or through monitoring devices such as impeded temperature sensors. For this reason, the Applicant argues against human judgement or mental evaluation.
The argument further includes that all of the steps are explicitly performed by the processor of the electronic device. Specifically, the determining input parameters and calculation of electrical energy loss and carbon emission. In summary, the Applicant again states the method is implemented entirely by electronic device and does not require human cognition. Applicants cites CyberSource Corp. v. Fidelity Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc. for methods performed by human mental process alone are not patent eligible, but methods requiring computer implementation are not mental processes.
The Examiner disagrees. Simply claiming that a step or action is performed “by a processor” is not sufficient for eligibility when following the framework established after Alice Corps. V. CLS Bank. Such a claim that a step is performed “by an electronic device having a processor” is merely the “Apply it” standard. In this instance the computer is specifically a tool for collecting data and performing calculations. The device is not controlling on its own the reduction of carbon emissions. The computer is the tool for collecting and analyzing data for a human operator to then act upon.
The step of obtaining the temperature is not persuasive. First, the Applicant removed the limitation including by a robot because the drawings did not include the claim limitation as required. There is the basic idea that the disclose includes one sentence regarding the use of a robot to collect and image of the temperature does not get read into the claims. The alternate collection method is simply a temperature sensor. The specific sensor is not claimed and would only be a generic and well understood additional element related to data collection, see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. and 2106.05(g)(3). Further, the application of an electronic device collecting data from a sensor automatically is not more than the a person recording the temperature from a sensor or gauge for the purpose of calculating the carbon emission. Under MEPE206.04(a)(2) III. B. The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process. 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 99 USPQ2d at 1695. See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196 (claimed "computations can be made by pencil and paper calculations"); and Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper"). The Examiner also notes that CyberSource Corp. v. Fidelity Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc. does not appear to be a real decision. The Examiner thinks, based on the content of the argument, that the Applicant meant CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The arguments move on to contend that the claims involve a specific technical features and not a mathematical calculation (remarks pages 6-7). Applicant states that the method is a series of technical operations rooted in power transformer technology. This includes extracting operation data, determining input parameters, obtaining top oil temperature, determining average temperature, determining electrical energy loss, and determining carbon emission of the transformer. The position is that technical features demonstrate the method is rooted in power transformer where it’s not a mere result-effect recitation of a mathematical formula, but a process that involves acquiring real time physical data from the transformer, processing the data, and providing a practical output for energy loss suppression. Applicant further cites DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. for solving a technical problem specific to the technical environment.
The Examiner does not agree. Collecting data, analyzing it, and displaying a result [for an operation to interpret] is not a technical solution, especially when performed with generic electronic [processing] device. The steps of extracting data, determining input parameters, obtaining top oil temperature, determining average temperature, calculating energy loss and carbon emission are similar to the steps outlined in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. as previously referenced. Performing the data gathering and calculations using generic computer hardware is not indicative of practical application nor is it more than use of a computer as a tool. Further, DDR Holdings was solving a problem related to the internet with a specific solution. This problem is not specific to necessitating computer hardware or a digital environment which cannot be accessed using the human mind. Collecting data, calculating results of mathematical formulas and equations, and displaying a result for an operator to follow is not a technical solution in the manner of DDR Holdings, LLC.
On page 8 of the remarks, the arguments state that under Step Two of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Further, the Applicant says the claims both individually and as an ordered combination amount to significantly more.
First, the argument states that the transformer is an element that transforms the calculations into a practical application due to the suppression of energy loss.
Second, the Applicant argument also takes the position that specific technical means, including extraction of real time operation data from the power grid management system for rapid and accurate estimation is not achievable with conventional approaches.
Third, the argument for ordered combination of elements provides technical solutions to the technical problem of carbon emission evaluation and inability to suppress energy loss in a transformer. The Applicants cite Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, for ordered combination of elements improving technology.
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant as they are not arguing the additional elements as outlined. Simply having a transformer with energy loss suppression does not transform the judicial exception into a practical application. Operation data is not an additional element but is merely data to be collected. Arguing a technical solution is not an additional element. As stated in the previous Non-Final Rejection (dated 05/06/2026) the additional elements of the claim amount to the oil immersed transformer, the electronic device, and the power grid information system. These three additional elements were not found as an ordered combination to improve technology. The Applicant is still collecting data with a generic computer or electronic device with a processor and computing mathematical equations to provide direction to a human operator. The system is not by itself suppressing the energy loss and thereby reducing the carbon emissions. The computer is a tool for data collection and calculation of mathematical functions to make a determination. This does not negate the judicial exception.
The arguments continue (remarks page 9) that the method is not pure data calculation. Applicant disagrees with Examiner and asserts that the claims involve five distinct steps which go beyond mathematical calculation and constitute specifical technical solution of a technical problem of accurately estimating and effectively suppressing energy loss.
Applicant also states that the Examiner is arguing that the extraction of operation data from a power grid information system cannot be done without human participation (remarks page 10).
Further, the Applicant asserts that the data extraction does not require human participation. The claims explicitly recite “by the processor of the electronic device” from the power grid information system. The argument again states that the electronic device automatically interfaces to extract the required operation data without human intervention. The statement includes “the operation data of the oil-immersed power transformer – including three phase voltage effective values, current effective values, and power factors, cannot be efficiently collected manually, as manual collection is low in efficiency and time-consuming, and therefore cannot achieve rapid estimation of the carbon emission of the on-site oil-immersed power transformer within the present time period”. Applicant argues the automated extraction of data by the processor is a key technical feature for rapid estimation.
The Examiner does not agree. First, the Examiner has answered the argument involving the collection and analysis of data many times in this argument section. The Examiner will kindly refer the Applicant back to the pervious answer related to data collection, analysis, and mathematical calculation by a generic computer or processor.
Second, the Examiner did not state that data extraction must be a human function. The Applicant did not quite a specific statement made by the Examiner, rather a blanket statement of an alleged position.
What the Examiner stated is reproduced below from page 8 of Non-Final OA dated 05/06/2026
“The argument is not persuasive. First, the position that the method is implemented with
technology and therefore not a mental process is incorrect and not what the mental process grouping entails. The mental process grouping is whether human judgement, observation, evaluation, and opinion are capable of performing one or more steps of the method or process. In this case, data observation data collection, analysis, calculation are all steps which can be performed by the human mind. The statement that the steps are applied to an electronic device including a processor, does not merely eliminate the mental process grouping. The additional elements used for data collection is insufficient to be significantly more than the exception is covered under MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, the Examiner does not agree with Applicants position regarding mathematical calculation. One can clearly see that the determination of carbon emission is based on calculation using the known variables. Further, the argument of achieving suppression of energy loss is may be the intended result however is not claimed. The electronic device, nor any other element if the claim, is causing a change to the transformer in order to achieve a suppression of energy loss. The claim is simply discussing the collection of data and the estimation of carbon emission. This is not more than a judicial exception in the groupings of mental processes and mathematical calculations.”
This statement does not specifically state the data collection has to be performed by a human. It does however state the a claim to data collection using an electronic device including a processor is insufficient to kick the claim out of the mental processing bucket when performing the analysis.
The Applicant also specifically stated that this process can be performed manually although very time consuming. The courts have made expressly clear that simply using a computer for the purpose of achieving a result more quick and accurately is not indicative of practical application or claim eligibility OIP Technologies, Inc., says relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (from PTAB)).
Additionally, automated data extraction is not a fundamental function which alone transforms a judicial exception into an eligible claim. In fact, automated data collection is covered under more than one of the functions recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)II. including but not limited to i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;.
The argument moves to the Examiner’s position that obtaining a top oil temperature reading requires a human collecting from a gauge and therefore involves mental activity. Applicant traverse the argument. Applicant again argues that collecting through automated means such as an inspection robot, embedded temperature sensor, or automated temperature monitoring device connected to the management system, or any other suitable automated temperature measurement equipment. Applicants position is that in all cases the temperature is a physical parameter that is directly measured by equipment, not a value that requires human judgement, observation, evaluation, or analysis. Therefore, not a mental process.
The Examiner does not agree. The Applicant is insistent that simply because they use the words sensor, automated, robot, or measurement equipment that it disqualifies the judicial exception. This is simply not the case. While the specification may support multiple possibilities for the data to be collected, the idea of collecting data, using a processor, does not automatically eliminate the abstract idea, nor does it automatically transform the claim into a practical application. The application of a computer to perform a process which a human can perform is the basis of simply applying technology or a technological field to the abstract idea. Having a power grid information management system collecting data using one or more sensors is still an abstract concept since the system comprises a computer and one or more sensors to collect the data. The sensors only exist to allow the computer hardware to collect and interpret the data in a usable manner. This is the equivalent of a human reading a temperature gauge.
It's also pointed out that the robot limitation was removed from the claims for lack of support. The disclosure is not read into the claims and Examiners are cautioned against doing that. Further, the claim limitation itself states “obtaining a top oil temperature Ttop of the oil-immersed power transformer”. There is nothing specific to any element which allows that limitation to be performed. Under broadest reasonable interpretation a human reading a temperature gauge is a reasonable position. Since the method is related to collecting data to perform a calculation there is nothing which would eliminate that possibility.
The arguments next state that the Examiner claims the method cannot be separated from human mental activities (Remarks page 10), The Applicant disagrees and recites steps performed by a processor. These steps are extracting data and determining steps. Applicants positions is that none of the steps involve a mental processes since they are all performed automatically using an electronic device. Applicant states that its not a mental process and requires the use of an electronic device for accurate and rapid estimation of carbon emissions.
The Applicant is categorically misrepresenting the rejection of the claims. Examiner position is not that it has to be a mental process. It’s that the application of the electronic device and processor to perform the functions do not integrate into a practical application because it’s simply applying a computer to what can be mental processes. Extracting data and making determinations does not require a processor. Asserting that the technical problem requires a processor is not sufficient to overcome the judicial exception. Further, the Applicant is arguing positions that are not part of the current claim limitans.
Further, the remainder of the arguments form pages 11-12 of the Applicants remarks are rehashing already answered arguments found above. The Examiner position is that the collection of data to make calculations is an abstract idea without significantly more. The power grid information system while collecting data automatically is not performing any physical alterations to the oil0immersed transformer itself. The calculations form the data collection regarding power loss and carbon emission is presented to a human operator for further action. The dependent claims are not patent eligible as the Applicant asserts.
In summary, the Applicants arguments are not persuasive. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights