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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: frequency component extraction module (e.g., claim 7), high-frequency back calculation module (e.g., claim 7), ow-frequency back calculation module (e.g., claim 7), and integration module (e.g., claim 7).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 7 recite an abstract idea of “dividing the secondary voltage signal into a low-frequency voltage component and a high- frequency voltage component” (mathematical concept), “performing primary voltage reconstruction by applying the inverse black box model on the high-frequency voltage component, to obtain a primary-voltage high-frequency voltage component”, (mathematical concept), “performing primary voltage reconstruction by applying the inverse electromagnetic duality model on the low-frequency voltage component, to obtain a primary-voltage low-frequency voltage component” (mathematical concept), “integrating the primary-voltage high-frequency voltage component and the primary-voltage low-frequency voltage component, to obtain the primary voltage of the power system” (mathematical concept).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Collecting a secondary voltage signal of a power system by the PT is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Collecting a secondary voltage signal of a power system by the PT is a well-understood, routine, and conventional feature known in the industry.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the modules recited in claims 7-9 can each be a computer program (see paragraph 0089), and functionality the computer program cannot be realized without any structural recitations (e.g., non-statutory computer-readable medium). Thus, the computer program is treated as nonstatutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03).
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-10 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method for reconstructing a primary voltage of a potential transformer (PT) based on an inverse black box model and an inverse electromagnetic duality model, comprising dividing the secondary voltage signal into a low-frequency voltage component and a high- frequency voltage component; applying the inverse black box model on the high-frequency voltage component, to obtain a primary-voltage high-frequency voltage component; and integrating the primary-voltage high-frequency voltage component and the primary-voltage low-frequency voltage component to obtain the primary voltage of the power system.(claims 1, 7) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sima et al. (CN 114325057), in International Search Report, does not qualify as prior art, because Sima et al. was published less than one year prior to the instant effective date and was invented by the same inventive entity as the instant application.
Casey et al. (US 2022/0416571) discloses a method for reconstructing a primary voltage of a potential transformer (PT) comprising:
collecting a secondary voltage signal of a power system by the PT (collecting secondary voltage, paragraph 0004, lines 5-6; paragraph 0006, lines 4-6),
performing primary voltage reconstruction (estimating primary voltage, paragraph 0004, lines 7-10); and
integrating to obtain the primary voltage of the power system (the primary distribution system estimator 222 can use the secondary side characteristics determined using the aggregated meter data 250 to estimate the voltage at the primary side of the transformer 210, paragraph 0089, lines 3-6).
Price et al. (US 2024/0258949) discloses controlling an electric motor comprising a transformer having a primary side and secondary side (Abstract, lines 1-7). Price et al. further discloses collecting a secondary voltage signal of a power system by the PT (paragraph 25).
The above references do not disclose dividing the secondary voltage signal into a low-frequency voltage component and a high- frequency voltage component; applying the inverse black box model on the high-frequency voltage component, to obtain a primary-voltage high-frequency voltage component; and integrating the primary-voltage high-frequency voltage component and the primary-voltage low-frequency voltage component to obtain the primary voltage of the power system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights