DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants Request for Continued Examination received on March 2, 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 acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 in the response on March 2, 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 6 of the reply on March 2, 2026. The Applicant begins with traversal of the rejection and support for amendments to the claims. Applicant requests reconsideration of the claims at this time (remarks page 6).
The Applicants position on the drawing objections are that the claims amendments of at least independent claim 1 has alleviated the drawing objection
In view of the amendments removing the unsupported element, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant moves to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 (pages 7-11) where the Applicant traverses the rejection arguing the claims as significantly more and transforming the claims to eligible subject matter. The Applicant proceeds to discuss the background and alleges the technical problem is a method to evaluate of the carbon emissions under operating conditions to suppress energy loss and the solution is implementation by an electronic device. The discussion further includes the claimed steps and how the method is provided to achieve rapid estimation of carbon emissions on a power transformer at low cost (remarks page 7). The argument includes that the method is implemented by an electrical device including operations of obtaining operating data (remarks page 7-8) and providing the carbon emission of the power transformer within the preset time period as a reference for analysis and reduction of carbon emission of the transformer. Applicants argue that the method is performed without human intervention, determining input parameters from operation data and calculates the electrical loss to achieve accurate estimation oft the carbon emission. Applicants position is that the steps or operations do not involve mental processes.
The
The Examiner does not agree. The mere addition of a electronic device including a processor to execute the steps and perform the calculations is not indicative of practical application. Instead it’s merely using computer hardware as a tool to collect the available data and perform the calculations. Even the collection of temperature by an image is simply using the available technological field as part of the data collection scheme, which is also being used to negate human involvement. The use of a camera, robot, or drone is simply using different hardware as a data collect process. Performing the calculation of carbon emission is not more than a complex mathematical calculation, one in this case is being performed by the electronic device. This means the electronic device is being used as a tool to perform the otherwise abstract idea. The human mind can also perform the mathematical calculation which is how the claim, in part, is classified as a mental processes. Further, the use of a computer to achieve an answer more quickly and accurately is no indicative of practical application or claim eligibility (OIP Technologies, Inc., v. Amazon.com, 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, the Examiner does not find it be a technical problem, rather this is a technical solution to a non-technical problem. The Applicants arguments even disclose that the purpose is to achieve an rapid estimation based on the inputs. This does not lean to a technical solution since it’s merely a calculation based on collected to known values.
The arguments move to the position that the implementation is based on an electronic device without human involvement and does not involve mental process. Specifically that the operation data is extracted from the grid information without the participation of a human, and the input parameters are determined by the processor according to the operation data. These steps are done to accurately determine the carbon emission of the power transformer with extremely low cost, thereby addressing the technical problem.
The Applicant also asserts that the claimed method is not directed to a mathematical calculation but instead include operation/elements of providing carbon emission G of the oil-immersed transformer. Further, the argument is the claimed method is directed to achieving suppression of energy loss of the on site transformer providing rapid estimation within a preset time period.
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.
The argument revisits the position that the method is implemented with an electronic device without the need for human intervention and therefore is not a mental process. The Applicant argues that the device determines a carbon emission of the transformer within a preset time period and the steps do not involve mental process.
Also the applicant restates the position that the estimation of carbon emissions of the transformer is to achieve effective suppression of energy loss (remarks pages 9-10).
The Examiner does not agree. Both of these arguments were previously answered above.
The Arguments move on to the position that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application (remarks page 10) to achieve the suppression of energy loss in the power transformer. Further, the argument is that the amended claim involves additional elements to achieve various technical improvements such as improved accuracy of estimation of emissions and suppression in energy loss. That is the claimed method involves additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Also, the argument is that the claims are not directed to mathematical calculations using conventional methods. Rather they involve additional elements to achieve rapid estimation of the emissions of a power transformer (remarks page 10-11). And the estimation results in a suppression of energy loss.
The Examiner does not agree. The Examiner does not find integration into a practical application because the electronic device is simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The device is handling the complex calculations in order to arrive at the estimation more quickly. The courts have been clear that use of a computer as a tool to arrive at a result more quickly and accurately is not sufficient for claim eligibility (OIP Technologies, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.,) Further, the claims are not involved in any sort of change to the transformer to transformer inputs to suppress energy loss. The claim includes collecting operational data, determining input parameters, determining temp and energy loss, and determining carbon emission of the transformer. This is simply collecting, and analyzing the data to determine a result.
The Applicant concludes with the argument that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and instead meet the criteria of BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility as an ordered combination of elements that helps improve technology.
The Examiner does not agree based on the above responses for mental processes and mathematical formulas and calculations. In BASCOM, the court held that the concept consisted of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each user. This combination is remarkable different from the current claims as the elements are a power transformer operating in its ordinary capacity and an electronic device used to collect data and calculate and estimated carbon emission based on collected data and inputs to the power transformer. This process is similar to the collecting available information, analyzing the information, and displaying a result disclosed in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as well as MPEP 2106.05(d) 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.").
Additionally, the current claims do not involve any filtering or customizable positions that are unique to each user. The Examiner does not find similarity to BASCOM.
In summary, the Applicants arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 at this time.
Conclusion
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 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights