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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 06/10/2024 and 11/18/2025 have been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to a “computer-readable recording medium”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this language encompasses a transitory medium such as a signal or carrier wave, which does not fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106, 11, A.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 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.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims 1, 6, and 7 are directed to an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Independent claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim drawn to a computer readable medium which could be interpreted as a signal or carrier wave (i.e. a transitory computer readable medium). Such a signal or carrier wave is not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106, II, A), but is directed to judicially excepted subject matter. (Step 1: No)
It is noted that computer programs embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium or other structure, which would permit the functionality of the program to be realized, would be directed to a product and be within a statutory category of invention, so long as the computer readable medium is not disclosed as non-statutory subject matter per se (signals or carrier waves).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention of claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under the “Mental Processes” and "Mathematical Relationships" Groupings.
The independent claims recite "acquire... information on a detection amount specific to the sensor," "correct... the detection amount acquired... based on the information," and "calculate each of measurement amounts... based on each of the detection amounts corrected." These limitations, as drafted, describe a process of data collection and mathematical manipulation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using a mathematical formula. The claim limitations encompass a person receiving a specific correction value (such as a phase or amplitude offset), applying that offset to a raw measurement (multiplication or addition), and calculating a final result (e.g., power calculation). Furthermore, the specific correction based on "frequency characteristics of a phase" (Claim 2) or "amplitude" (Claim 3) represents a mathematical relationship applied to data. The mere nominal recitation of an "acquirer," "processor," or "calculator" does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping and merely functions to automate the mathematical comparison and calculation steps. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 recite the additional limitations/elements of an acquirer, a processor, a calculator, and sensors.
The acquirer, processor, and calculator are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and operate in their ordinary capacity (receiving data, processing data, and performing calculations) such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional limitation of "sensors" being "replaceable" or having a "switchable" connection position merely describes the environment or a field of use in which the abstract idea (data correction) operates. These elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they result in a physical transformation of a measurement target. Instead, they merely function to provide a flexible data-gathering environment for the mental process of correcting measurement errors.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. To show that the set of additional elements in combination are well-understood, routine, and conventional, the Examiner identifies that the use of generic sensors (current/voltage sensors) and processors to perform data correction based on calibration data are ubiquitous in the electrical arts. For instance, EP 3112884 A1 (Havranek) demonstrates the routine use of digital processors to read correction data from sensor memory to compensate for phase and amplitude errors. JP 2008101927 A (Toshiaki) demonstrates that it is conventional to manage a plurality of sensors and store specific correction values for each to enable multi-point measurement. Together, these references illustrate that the hardware (acquirer/processor/calculator) and the sequence of data-gathering and correction steps claimed are standard components used in their expected manner.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicates that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. Further, elements recited at a high level of generality and those used for data gathering necessary to the performance of the abstract idea are not enough to render the claim significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The requirement that sensors be "replaceable" or "switchable" is a conventional feature of modular measurement systems and does not constitute an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2 and 3 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as they merely specify the type of data (phase/amplitude frequency characteristics) being mathematically processed, which is shown to be conventional by Havranek. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by EP 3112884 A1 (Havranek).
With regards to claim 1, Havranek teaches a measuring device for communicating with a plurality of sensors (a merging unit configured for "connection of various types of current and voltage sensors" ([0015])), the measuring device comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire, from each of the sensors, information on a detection amount specific to the sensor and the detection amount detected by the sensor (the sensors are equipped with an "electronic memory 18" to store "specific correction data" and that the unit acquires this data to "calculate the corrections of the instantaneous values" ([0018-0019]));
a processor configured to correct, for each of the sensors, the detection amount acquired by the acquirer based on the information (a digital section [4] that performs "automatic correction of the sensors' errors" based on the sensor-specific data ([0021], [0030]));
and a calculator configured to calculate each of measurement amounts of a measurement target based on each of the detection amounts corrected by the processor (calculates corrected "instantaneous values" (detection amount) to provide a parameterizable output (measurement amount) ([0011])),
and each of the sensors is replaceable (Havranek explicitly states the invention allows for “automation for the procedure of connecting various sensors” and reading data upon sensor connection ([0018])).
With regards to claim 2, Havranek teaches wherein the information on the detection amount specific to the sensor includes information indicating a frequency characteristic of a phase of the detection amount (Havranek discloses that the electronic memory (18) of the sensor stores "specific correction data" ([0019]) which specifically includes the "phase frequency characteristics" of the sensor ([0029])),
and the processor is configured to correct the detection amount based on the information indicating the frequency characteristic of the phase ("digital section (4)" uses the stored phase frequency data to "calculate the corrections of the instantaneous values" (the detection amount) to compensate for phase deviation ([0021], [0029]).
With regards to claim 3, Havranek teaches wherein the information on the detection amount specific to the sensor includes information indicating a frequency characteristic of an amplitude of the detection amount (sensor-specific correction data in the memory (18) accounts for deviations that "influence mainly the static transfer characteristics and the amplitude" across the sensor's range ([0029])),
and the processor is configured to correct the detection amount based on the information indicating the frequency characteristic of the amplitude (“correction coefficient for the amplitude is used for direct multiplication of the instantaneous value of the digitized signal” ([0029])).
With regards to claim 5, Havranek teaches a computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer that communicates with a plurality of sensors ("software-parameterizable" unit where logic is implemented in a "digital section" containing a microcontroller and field-programmable gate array ([0016], [0021]). This inherently requires a computer-readable medium (ROM/Flash) containing the instruction set.),
each of which is replaceable, to execute steps of: acquiring, from each of the sensors, information on a detection amount specific to the sensor and the detection amount detected by the sensor; processing to correct each of the detection amounts acquired by the acquirer based on the information; and calculating each of measurement amounts of a measurement target based on each of the detection amounts corrected by the processor (see the rejection of claim 1).
With regards to claim 6, Havranek teaches a measuring device for communicating with a plurality of sensors, the measuring device comprising: an acquirer configured to acquire, from each of the sensors, information on a detection amount specific to the sensor and the detection amount detected by the sensor; a processor configured to correct, for each of the sensors, the detection amount acquired by the acquirer based on the information; and a calculator configured to calculate each of measurement amounts of a measurement target based on each of the detection amounts corrected by the processor (see the rejection of claim 1),
and one of the sensors is switchable to another one (Havranek discloses that the system is designed to provide "automation for the procedure of connecting various sensors" and explicitly facilitates the replacement of the sensors ([0015]), ([0018]). The ability to replace a sensor with another one (e.g., swapping a damaged sensor or changing types) is the core utility described in Havranek’s automation of the parameterization process).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3112884 A1 (Havranek) in view of JP 2008101927 A (Toshiaki).
With regards to claim 7, Havranek teaches a measuring device for communicating with a plurality of sensors, the measuring device comprising: an acquirer configured to acquire, from each of the sensors, information on a detection amount specific to the sensor and the detection amount detected by the sensor; a processor configured to correct, for each of the sensors, the detection amount acquired by the acquirer based on the information; and a calculator configured to calculate each of measurement amounts of a measurement target based on each of the detection amounts corrected by the processor (see the rejection for claim 1),
Havranek does not teach:
and the sensors are connectable to the measuring device,
and the connection position of each of the sensors is switchable.
However, Toshiaki teaches and the sensors are connectable to the measuring device (current detection unit configure to connect “a plurality of (for example, twelve) current sensors 24” ([0016])), and the connection position of each of the sensors is switchable (Toshiaki teaches that because the system stores a specific correction phase difference φ corresponding to each current sensor ([0027]), “the power P at each measurement point can be accurately measured” by the device.” ([0029]). Toshiaki further discloses that a user can perform “individual processing for recording the correction phase difference φ corresponding to the current sensor 24 selected from the sensors” ([0023]), which inherently allows for the switching of connection positions between the sensors while maintaining accuracy.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring device of Havranek to implement the switchable connection positions taught by Toshiaki wherein the sensors are connectable to the measuring device, and the connection position of each of the sensors is switchable. This would achieve “sufficient variability” and “higher rate of automation” (Havranek ([0015]), ([0018])) when measuring a “plurality of measurement locations” (Toshiaki ([0026])).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180100878 A1 (Pearce)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights