FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 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.
As to Step-1 test: result-YES (a method or an apparatus).
Claims 1-20 are related to a process or method and thus, the claims pass Step-1 test.
As to Step-2A test: result-NO (Abstract idea of itself).
Claims 1-20 are rejected as not being directed to patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, specifically the recitations of “determining, by the at least one processor, a first rate of change (ROC) ….;” “generating, by the at least one processor, based on the first ROC ….;” “receiving, by the at least one processor, from the at least one sensor ….;” “determining, by the at least one processor, a second ROC ….;” “comparing, by the at least one processor, the second gas concentration ….;” “comparing, by the at least one processor, based on the comparison ….;” “responsive to determining that the second gas concentration does not exceed the static gas concentration threshold, updating, by the at least one processor, the first adaptive alarm threshold based on the second ROC; responsive to determining that the second gas concentration exceeds the static gas concentration threshold,” “detecting, by the at least one processor, the fault based the comparison ….;” and “generating, by the at least one processor, an alert indicative of the fault.” are directed to a mathematical procedure for converting one form of mathematical representation to another and therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites the steps of “determining, by the at least one processor, a first rate of change (ROC) ….;” “generating, by the at least one processor, based on the first ROC ….;” “receiving, by the at least one processor, from the at least one sensor ….;” “determining, by the at least one processor, a second ROC ….;” “comparing, by the at least one processor, the second gas concentration ….;” “comparing, by the at least one processor, based on the comparison ….;” “responsive to determining that the second gas concentration does not exceed the static gas concentration threshold, updating, by the at least one processor, the first adaptive alarm threshold based on the second ROC; responsive to determining that the second gas concentration exceeds the static gas concentration threshold,” “detecting, by the at least one processor, the fault based the comparison ….;” and “generating, by the at least one processor, an alert indicative of the fault.”, which is an abstract idea similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as –
Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results on the collection and analysis (Electric power Group); Collecting and comparing known information (Classen); Organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech); Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction); Comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene); An algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams) - that are directed to mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations (or Mathematical Relationships/Formulas or Mathematical procedures for converting one form of mathematical representation to another) which the court has found as an abstract idea.
As to Step-2B test: result-NO (Well known in the Art).
The remainder of the claim limitations, e.g. “receiving, by at least one processor of a device, from at least one sensor of a power transformer ….;” (Claim 1), “the device comprising memory coupled to at least one processor” (Claim 19), “a dissolved gas analyzer device; and memory coupled to at least one processor” (Claim 20), are not an abstract idea, however, the structure is not found to be significantly more since the structure is routine and conventional as the structure is well known in the art, as disclosed in the Yu art, for example ([0005]: “an alarm device for monitoring abnormal states of a power transformer, comprising a transformer body and a detection box.”), and the functions of the known structures are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering or data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea). Therefore, the claims are not directed to additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
It is noted that Alice made it clear that different statutory categories should not be treated differently with regard to analysis of eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/14/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(a) With regards to claim rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 applicant argues in page 9-11:
“As amended, claim 1 recites updating the adaptive alarm threshold responsive to determining that the second gas concentration does not exceed the static gas concentration threshold. The claims further recite detecting a transformer fault responsive to determining that both (i) the gas concentration exceeds the static threshold and (ii) the ROC exceeds the adaptive alarm threshold. Thus, the claims recite a specific dual-threshold transformer fault verification workflow integrated into operation of a transformer monitoring system, rather than merely collecting and analyzing information. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A.
As amended, the claims are directed to a specific implementation of transformer fault monitoring using dissolved gas analysis data obtained from sensors associated with a physical power transformer. In particular, the claims recite generating a transformer-specific adaptive alarm threshold, selectively updating the adaptive alarm threshold responsive to determining that gas concentrations do not exceed a static threshold, and detecting transformer faults responsive to determining that both (i) gas concentration exceeds a static threshold and (ii) ROC exceeds the adaptive threshold. These limitations define a specific operational workflow for transformer fault verification and adaptive threshold management within a transformer monitoring environment.
The claimed adaptive threshold management is not performed in the abstract or for mere data analysis purposes. Rather, the adaptive threshold is selectively updated using operational transformer data corresponding to acceptable transformer operating conditions, thereby enabling the monitoring system to adapt to transformer-specific behavior over time. The claims therefore improve operation of transformer fault detection systems by enabling more accurate transformer fault verification using coordinated static and adaptive threshold evaluation.
Amended independent claims 19 and 20 recite some features that are similar to the features of the amended independent claim 1. Thus, the remarks presented above for the amended independent claim 1 also apply to the amended independent claims 19 and 20.”
(b) With regards to claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 applicant argues in page 12:
“These limitations define a specific adaptive threshold management and dual-threshold fault verification architecture that is not merely a generic implementation of mathematical calculations on a computer.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The requirement for a proper response to a rejection may be found in 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07. The requirements for broadest reasonable interpretation are discussed in MPEP 2111.01 (I) and 2173.01(I). Essential enquiries for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 may be found in MPEP §706.03(a) and §2105 -§2107.03. See MPEP §706.03(a) and §2105 - §2107.03 for additional guidance on subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
As to claim interpretation, MPEP 2111.01 (I) states “[U]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention or as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
Examiner’s explanation:
(a) The examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitations are directed to a mathematical procedure for converting one form of mathematical representation to another and, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The recited limitations, such as, “determining, by the at least one processor, a first rate of change (ROC) ….;” “generating, by the at least one processor, based on the first ROC ….;” “receiving, by the at least one processor, from the at least one sensor ….;” “determining, by the at least one processor, a second ROC ….;” “comparing, by the at least one processor, the second gas concentration ….;” “comparing, by the at least one processor, based on the comparison ….;” “responsive to determining that the second gas concentration does not exceed the static gas concentration threshold, updating, by the at least one processor ….. threshold,” “detecting, by the at least one processor, the fault based the comparison ….;” and “generating, by the at least one processor, an alert indicative of the fault,” are directed to mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations (or Mathematical Relationships/Formulas or Mathematical procedures for converting one form of mathematical representation to another). Even though these limitations define a specific adaptive threshold management and dual-threshold fault verification technique, this is merely a generic implementation of mathematical calculations executed by at least one processor, and which the court has found as an abstract idea.
(b) As explained in the rejection section, the remainder of the claim limitations, e.g. “receiving, by at least one processor of a device, from at least one sensor of a power transformer ….;” (Claim 1), “the device comprising memory coupled to at least one processor” (Claim 19), “a dissolved gas analyzer device; and memory coupled to at least one processor” (Claim 20), the structure in the claims is not found to be significantly more since the structure is routine and conventional as the structure is well known in the art, as disclosed in the Yu art (cited previously), for example ([0005]: “an alarm device for monitoring abnormal states of a power transformer, comprising a transformer body and a detection box.”), and the functions of the known structures are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data gathering or data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea). Therefore, the claims are not directed to additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained since under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are related to merely a generic implementation of mathematical calculations executed by at least one processor, and the claims are not directed to additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Matsuda et al. (US 10,690,629 B2) teaches a gas detection device comprising: an element portion which is disposed in an exhaust gas passage of an internal combustion engine, which includes an electrochemical cell including a solid electrolyte with oxide ion conductivity and a first electrode and a second electrode which are formed on surfaces of the solid electrolyte, and a diffusion resistor formed of a porous material being able to transmit an exhaust gas flowing in the exhaust gas passage, and in which the exhaust gas flowing in the exhaust gas passage reaches the first electrode via the diffusion resistor; a power supply circuit configured to apply a voltage across the first electrode and the second electrode; a current detection sensor configured to detect an output current which is a current flowing between the first electrode and the second electrode; and an electronic control unit configured to control an application voltage which is a voltage applied across the first electrode and the second electrode using the power supply circuit, to acquire the output current using the current detection sensor, and to perform determination of whether sulfur oxides with a predetermined concentration or more is contained in the exhaust gas or detection of a concentration of sulfur oxides in the exhaust gas based on the acquired output current, wherein the electronic control unit performs detection voltage control including first application voltage control, second application voltage control, and third application voltage control using the power supply circuit, the first application voltage control is application voltage control of performing a step-up sweep of stepping up the application voltage from a first voltage, which is selected from a first voltage range which is higher than a lower limit voltage of a limiting current region in which the output current is a limiting current of oxygen and lower than a decomposition start voltage of sulfur oxides, to a second voltage which is higher than the decomposition start voltage of sulfur oxides, the second application voltage control is application voltage control of maintaining the application voltage to be equal to or higher than the decomposition start voltage of sulfur oxides over a predetermined voltage maintaining time from a time point at which the first application voltage control ends after the first application voltage control, the third application voltage control is application voltage control of performing a step-down sweep of stepping down the application voltage from a voltage at a time point at which the second application voltage control ends to the first voltage at a predetermined step-down rate after the second application voltage control, the electronic control unit acquires a parameter, which has a correlation with a degree of a reoxidation current change of the output current, which appears in a voltage range below the decomposition start voltage of sulfur oxides, due to a current flowing between the first electrode and the second electrode due to return of sulfurs adsorbed on the first electrode to sulfur oxides by a reoxidation reaction in the first electrode when the application voltage is less than the decomposition start voltage of sulfur oxides during the step-down sweep, the degree of change of the output current increasing as the concentration of sulfur oxides in the exhaust gas increases, based on the output current, and performs determination of whether the concentration of sulfur oxides in the exhaust gas is equal to or higher than a predetermined value or detection of the concentration of sulfur oxides in the exhaust gas based on the acquired parameter, and the predetermined step-down rate in the step-down sweep is set to a rate at which a current change indicating the reoxidation current change appears (Claim 1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights