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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 04/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are still pending.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
4. Page 11, the Applicant(s) argues that “Even assuming arguendo that the "determining" step recites an abstract idea, the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO's eligibility framework ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, and MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application and MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
4.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 4 above.
2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, I. TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY, First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 ... See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP §2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories … Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, I. JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS, Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection … In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas." It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings,
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas … C. Mathematical calculations, A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recite a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation …
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions … C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … Another example is Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in Fair Warning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69 … but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) … A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception … Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: … • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); … The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) through (h) for the list of considerations that are evaluated at Step 2B. Although most of these considerations.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. A judicial exception includes but is not limited to “mental process” (thinking perform with the help of pen and paper despite that is performed by computer in the claim), which that could be performed with the help of pen and paper despite claiming that such a process is performed by a computer, and “mathematical concepts” defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations that include but not limited to arithmetic operation, mathematical methods and/or performing mathematical operations regardless the claim use the word “calculating” or not when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Regarding step 2A, Prong One, In the instant case the limitations relative to “determining ... that an open-switch event occurred ...” could be easily perform mentally with the help of pen and paper after gathering the necessary information. In addition, “determining ...” is clearly a mental-process.
Regarding step 2A, Prong Two, the other elements of the claims do not involve a particular machines and/or article transformation in which the Abstract-Idea is integrated but simply routine structure and previously known to the context of smart metering device, which are used for the routine data gathering of the necessary information/measurements in order to execute the abstract-ideas/judicial-exceptions, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, which do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception/Abstract-Idea. In addition, the step relative to “notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” is simply the application (“apply it” or equivalent according to MPEP 2106.05(f)) of the abstract-ideas/judicial-exceptions. Therefore, at step 2A Prong Two, it is determined that the Abstract-Idea is not implemented into a practical application.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Abstract-Idea involves mental processes, mathematical algorithms, equations and/or formulas and is not implemented into a practical application.
4.2 SECOND Argument in support to response to number 4 above.
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e]the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art"). The Supreme Court has identified additional elements as mere instructions to apply an exception in several cases. For instance, in Mayo, the Supreme Court concluded that a step of determining thiopurine metabolite levels in patients’ blood did not amount to significantly more than the recited laws of nature, because this additional element simply instructed doctors to apply the laws by measuring the metabolites in any way the doctors (or medical laboratories) chose to use. 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The Supreme Court also discussed this concept in an earlier case, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), where the claim recited a process for converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numbers. The Court found that the claimed process had no meaningful practical application except in connection with a computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at71-72, 175 USPQ at 676. The claim simply stated a judicial exception (e.g., law of nature or abstract idea) while effectively adding words that "apply it" in a computer. Id. ...
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. ...
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir.2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")). ...
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir.2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016).See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea. ...
(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir.2015) (The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result). See also O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) (finding ineligible a claim for "the use of electromagnetism for transmitting signals at a distance"); The Telephone Cases, 126U.S. 1, 209 (1888) (finding a method of "transmitting vocal or other sound telegraphically ... by causing electrical undulations, similar in form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sounds," to be ineligible, because it "monopolize[d] a natural force" and "the right to avail of that law by any means whatever.").
In contrast, limitations that confine the judicial exception to a particular, practical application of the judicial exception may amount to significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, in BASCOM, the combination of additional elements, and specifically "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end‐users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user" where the filtering tool at the ISP was able to "identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account," were held to be meaningful limitations because they confined the abstract idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional claim elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), or, more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following analysis: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity; and (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The independent claims of the instant application recite “notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” (hereinafter mentioned as “Result/Outcome”), which are no more than instructions to implement the judicial-exception/abstract-idea, as a result/outcome.
With regards to (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The notification to a customer that a switch is open as claimed is simply the recitation of a solution with no restriction on how the Result/Outcome is accomplished, and no description of any mechanisms for accomplishing said Result/Outcome.
With regards to (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The independent claims of the instant application invoke a computer because a processor of the smart meter performs the open-switch determination process after “determining ... that an open-switch event occurred” that is part of the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (see paragraph [0019] of the specifications by the Applicant(s)), which is a general purpose computer/processor (see paragraph [0028] of the specifications by the Applicant(s)).
With regards to (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The independent claims of the instant application generically recite an effect of the judicial-exception/abstract-idea or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect. For instance, the independent claims recite “determining ... that an open-switch event occurred”, then, “notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” without details to restrict on how the open-switch determination process and the notification to the customer are done and no description of any mechanism for the same. Consequently, the aforesaid result is disassociated from any method by which the said claimed determination and notification are accomplished, and only states the Result/Outcome of the application of the judicial-exception/abstract-idea. In a general way, the instant independent claims are similar to Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir.2015), where “The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”.
Therefore, the Examiner has concluded that the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is not integrated into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, and/or, the additional elements individually and in combination as whole do not recite significantly more than a judicial-exception/abstract-idea in Step 2B. Furthermore, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words equivalent (notifying) to "apply it" and they are no more than instructions to implement the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible neither under Step 2A Prong Two nor under Step 2B.
5. Page(s) 12-13, the Applicant(s) argues that “These claims follow the same pattern as US PTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 45, Claim 2 (Controller for Injection Mold). In that example ... The present claims are also analogous to Example 45, Claim 4, where the controller compared obtained temperatures to a target temperature (a mental process) and then maintained the mold temperature by sending control signals to selectively heat or cool the mold”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) does not follow the same pattern as Example 45.
Regarding claim 2 of Example 45, it sets forth that “the controller is configured to send control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold once the polyurethane”, which is a concrete physical limitation in which the signal controls the apparatus (hereinafter mentioned as “Control-Signal”) to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane. On the other hand, the instant application simply sends a signal to notify a customer (hereinafter mentioned as “Notification-Signal”), which does not control any apparatus. Therefore, neither implement the abstract-idea/judicial-exemption into a practical application at step 2A, Prong II, nor amount to significantly more at step 2B. Consequently, one ordinary skilled in the art clearly recognizes that the claimed Notification-Signal is not analogous to the Control-Signal of claim 2 of Example 45.
Furthermore, the Notification-Signal is actually analogous to “(c) displaying the analysis results for the animal on the display” of ineligible claim 1 of Example 46 (hereinafter mentioned as the “Display-Signal”) because the Notification-Signal is sent to mobile device, smart home device (e.g., home hub device), or other computing device (see paragraph [0035] of the specifications by the Applicant(s)). where it is determined that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similarly to the Display-Signal in Example 46, the Notification-Signal represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computing device, mobile device or smart device.
Regarding claim 4 of Example 45, it sets forth “(c) compare the obtained temperatures to a target temperature” that is determined to be also a mental-step that could performed in the human mind via observation/evaluation, and said claim includes the step “(d) maintain temperature of the mold within two degrees of the target temperature by sending a control signal to the apparatus to selectively heat or cool the mold when the obtained temperature of the mold is more than two degrees different than the target temperature”, which is very similar to the Control-Signal. Therefore, this claim 4 is not analogous as well.
6. Page(s) 14, the Applicant(s) argues that “Furthermore, the Patent Office's Step 2B analysis contains an internal contradiction. At paragraph 23 of the Office Action, the Office acknowledges that "the prior art of record does not teach the limitations of the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps
above in the independent claims." Yet the Office simultaneously concludes that the additional elements are "simply routine and conventional." If the prior art does not teach the claimed determination, then the ordered combination of measuring, determining, and notifying as claimed cannot be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Examiner must provide factual evidence that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. A bare assertion is insufficient, and the Examiner's own admission undermines the assertion that the features are well-understood, routine, and conventional.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because there is no contradiction in the previous office action (Non-Final Rejection). The rejection on Page 18 clearly sets forth that what was not found in the prior art of record is the element is of the claim relative to the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps (Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea) and does not require any evidence as well as the additional element relative to “notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event ...” because it falls into the concept of the MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” as stated/explained in response number 4 above, which are different from the additional elements of the claim that constitute routine and conventional steps/structures.
Furthermore, the rejection on Pages 4-5 clearly sets forth that the additional elements on the claim are routine, conventional, etc., and refers for evidence of the same to the prior art of made of record contained within the same office action and on the IDS according to Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
7. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully further disagrees because the claim(s) are patent eligible because do not recite a particular machine/device, the additional elements/limitations is/are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry despite the fact that include concrete components and not mathematical calculations or mental steps. Therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(b) I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS; MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; and 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
7.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry; and whether said additional elements is amount to more than generally linked to a field of use and technological environment consideration.
With regards to the particularity of a machine under 2106.05(b), the instant claims do not recite a particular machine, it simply claims a smart metering device, transformer and circuit with a high degree of generality that could not be considered a particular smart meter, transformer, circuit. For example, see Clark Pub. No.: US 2020/0064385 (hereinafter mentioned as “Clark”, which was provided in the previous office action), abstract, Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0022]-[0028], which was provided in the previous office action.
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g), the instant application, the independent claims simply recites the additional claim elements/limitations “measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site; measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site” (hereinafter together mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”), which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the operating of a smart metering device context.
The prior art evidence in support that additional elements are extra solution activities (Pre-solution and Post-solution) as follows:
The independent claim(s) recites the limitation(s) “measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site”, see (Clark, paragraph [0028], [0023] and Fig. 2B) and (Driscoll Pub. No.: US 2016/0320431 (hereinafter mentioned as “Driscoll”, which was provided in the previous office action), abstract, paragraphs [0028]-[0035] and Figs. 5-16).
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site”, see (Clark, abstract and paragraph [0022]-[0023] and Fig. 2B) and (Driscoll, abstract, paragraphs [0028]-[0035], Fig. 16).
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event”, see (Sonderegger Pub. No.: US 2015/0241488 (hereinafter mentioned as “Sonderegger”, which was provided in the previous office action), abstract and paragraph [0018]-[0023] and Figs. 2-3, NOTIFICATION MODULE 214) and (Driscoll, paragraphs [0085] and [0049], Fig. 9, Block 916 and 910).
Furthermore, the claims at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which have similarities in a general way with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Therefore, the independent claim(s) simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to smart metering device, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the operating of a smart metering device context that is performed using well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element individually and/or in combination of elements as whole fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
7.2 SECOND Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …
In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the independent claim(s) appears not to be directed to any “Technological Environment” but simply linking it to the context relative to operating a smart metering device, which appears not to be a “field of use” as determined by the courts. Therefore, the limitations amount to merely indicating a the use, which in a general way is similar to Parker v. Flook where the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm is linked to field/industry related to chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in which the court found the claims ineligibles under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial-exception are mathematical algorithms and formulas and is not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.
8. Page(s) 14-18, the Applicant(s) argues that “Assuming arguendo that the independent claims were directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), claims 2-3, 10-11, and 16-17 add load disaggregation features that further integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. These claims add: "disaggregating a load measured by the smart metering device to determine two or more constituent devices of the load"; "learning an association between the ... constituent devices and the circuit"; and using "simultaneous removal of loads" as evidence of an open-switch event. The specification at paragraphs [0012] and [0038] through [0039] describes … This provides a concrete technical improvement: … This is a meaningful limitation that uses the allegedly abstract idea to improve the operation of the electrical system ... This goes well beyond merely linking the alleged abstract idea to a technological field. ... This goes well beyond merely linking the alleged abstract idea to a technological field. ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
8.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in 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. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step-Test”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step-Test”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The aforesaid steps are to be evaluated by the Examiner with regards to whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Regarding to the First-Step-Test, the specification by the Applicant(s) appears to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any technological improvements except for instructions well known instructions to perform the functions/methods. Furthermore, it does appear to set forth an indication of improvement that includes a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional, or identifies technical improvements over the prior art as established by the courts and set forth in the MPEP.
Regarding to the Second-Step-Test, the full scope of the claim does not contain an improvement(s) to neither the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology or technical field with sufficient details that could be recognized by one ordinary skilled in the art.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim recites the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea related to “determining ... that an open-switch event occurred.” with the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry” and the concept of “apply it” that are both above mentioned/explained. Therefore, the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea is not implemented into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim simply recites the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry” above mentioned. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than said Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea.
Furthermore, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method (“apply it”) on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, however, the instant claims only include instructions to perform the method with routine devices pertinent to the industry and nothing more. Furthermore, the claim neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification.
Furthermore, by evaluating the full scope of the claim under BRI as a whole, the Examiner concludes that the claim has not-enough particular details to be considered an improvement to a particular practical application.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer and data gathering.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention neither contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
9. Page(s) 18-19, the Applicant(s) argues that “Assuming arguendo that the independent claims were directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), claim 7 adds "sending a signal to a circuit breaker device to reset the circuit breaker device." The specification at paragraph [0024] describes ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the concept of “apply it” and “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field” above on responses number 4, 7 and 8, which are repeated, reiterated and applied to claim 7 and all claims.
10. Page(s) 19, the Applicant(s) argues that “Claims 6 and 8, 14, and 20 depend from independent claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively, and are allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on independent
claims that are patent-eligible for the reasons set forth in Section I above...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the responses number 4, 7 and 8, which are repeated, reiterated and applied to Claims 6 and 8, 14, 20 and all claims.
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.
11. Claim 1-20 is 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.
12. Claim 1 is directed to “determining, … based at least in part on the voltage value being non-zero and the at least one of the power value or the current value of the circuit being zero, that an open-switch event occurred”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method of operating a smart metering device, comprising: measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site; measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site; … by the smart metering device and … notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
12.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method of operating a smart metering device, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
12.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “determining, … based at least in part on the voltage value being non-zero and the at least one of the power value or the current value of the circuit being zero, that an open-switch event occurred”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
12.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the smart metering device, transformer and circuit are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the smart metering device has a processor that is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state.
Furthermore, the operating of a smart metering device context, is simply linking the claim to use context but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the operating of a smart metering device context. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using smart metering devices, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for using a smart metering device).
12.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method of operating a smart metering device, comprising: measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site; measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site; … by the smart metering device and … notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
13. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “disaggregating a load measured by the smart metering device to determine two or more constituent devices of the load; and learning an association between the two or more constituent devices and the circuit; wherein the determining that the open-switch event occurred is additionally based at least in part on the association”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see Stewart Pub. No.: US 2017 /0271877, abstract, [0007] and [0040]. Also see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
14. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “disaggregating a load measured by the smart metering device to determine two or more constituent devices of the load; and associating the two or more constituent devices with the circuit, wherein the associating is based at least in part on simultaneous removal of loads associated with the two or more constituent devices from load measured by the smart metering device; wherein the determining that the open-switch event that occurred is additionally based at least in part on simultaneous removal of loads associated with the two or more constituent devices from load measured by the smart metering device”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see Stewart Pub. No.: US 2017 /0271877, abstract, [0007] and [0040]. Also see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
15. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “receiving data indicating operation of devices and combinations of devices at the service site, wherein each device is associated with the circuit or one or more other circuits of a circuit breaker box, and at least one of the circuit or the one or more other circuits of the circuit breaker box is associated with a respective miniature circuit breakers (MCBs); learning one or more combinations of appliance use that result in an open switch in an MCB; and based at least in part on the learning, notifying the customer of one or more potential causes of one or more openings of one or more breaker switches”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
16. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “receiving a notification of an open-switch event from a miniature circuit breaker (MCB) of the service site, wherein the MCB is monitoring the circuit or one or more other circuits at the service site, wherein notifying the customer of the service site additionally comprises notifying the customer of the open-switch event and an identity of the MCB”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
17. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “receiving miniature circuit breaker (MCB) data comprising at least one of: a switch setting; a voltage value; a current value; a power value; and an energy value from an MCB; and utilizing the MCB data when determining that the open-switch event occurred”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
18. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “wherein notifying the customer comprises: sending a signal to a circuit breaker device to reset the circuit breaker device”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
19. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the method is performed based at least in part on actions comprising: receiving a command to perform the method sent by a mobile device of the customer; or receiving a command to perform the method sent by an electrical utility company”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
20. Claim 9 is directed to “determining, … based at least in part on the voltage value being non-zero and the at least one of the power value or the current value of the circuit being zero, that an open-switch event occurred”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A smart metering device, comprising: a processor; one or more memory devices in communication with the processor; statements, defined in the one or more memory devices, which when executed by the processor perform actions comprising: measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site; measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site; … by the smart metering device and … notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 9 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
20.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 9 is directed to a smart metering device, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
20.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 9 recites: “determining, … based at least in part on the voltage value being non-zero and the at least one of the power value or the current value of the circuit being zero, that an open-switch event occurred”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
20.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 9 does not claim a particular machine because the smart metering device, transformer, circuit and memory are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the processor that is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state.
Furthermore, the operating of a smart metering device context, is simply linking the claim to use context but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the operating of a smart metering device context. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using smart metering devices, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for using a smart metering device).
20.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 9 recites the additional element(s) “A smart metering device, comprising: a processor; one or more memory devices in communication with the processor; statements, defined in the one or more memory devices, which when executed by the processor perform actions comprising: measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site; measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site; … by the smart metering device and … notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see response 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
21. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: disaggregating a load measured by the smart metering device to determine two or more constituent devices of the load; and learning an association between the two or more constituent devices and the circuit; wherein the determining that the open-switch event occurred is additionally based at least in part on the association”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see Stewart Pub. No.: US 2017 /0271877, abstract, [0007] and [0040]. Also see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
22. Claim 11 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: disaggregating a load measured by the smart metering device to determine two or more constituent devices of the load; and associating the two or more constituent devices with the circuit, wherein the associating is based at least in part on simultaneous removal of loads associated with the two or more constituent devices from load measured by the smart metering device; wherein the determining that the open-switch event that occurred is additionally based at least in part on simultaneous removal of loads associated with the two or more constituent devices from load measured by the smart metering device”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see Stewart Pub. No.: US 2017 /0271877, abstract, [0007] and [0040]. Also see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
23. Claim 12 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: receiving data indicating operation of devices and combinations of devices at the service site, wherein each device is associated with the circuit or one or more other circuits of a circuit breaker box, and at least one of the circuit or the one or more other circuits of the circuit breaker box is associated with a respective miniature circuit breakers (MCBs); learning one or more combinations of appliance use that result in an open switch in an MCB; and based at least in part on the learning, notifying the customer of one or more potential causes of one or more openings of one or more breaker switches”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
24. Claim 13 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: receiving a notification of an open-switch event from a miniature circuit breaker (MCB) of the service site, wherein the MCB is monitoring the circuit or one or more other circuits at the service site, wherein notifying the customer of the service site additionally comprises notifying the customer of the open-switch event and an identity of the MCB”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
25. Claim 14 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: receiving miniature circuit breaker (MCB) data comprising at least one of: a switch setting; a voltage value; a current value; a power value; and an energy value from an MCB; and utilizing the MCB data when determining that the open-switch event occurred”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
26. Claim 14 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: receiving miniature circuit breaker (MCB) data comprising at least one of: a switch setting; a voltage value; a current value; a power value; and an energy value from an MCB; and utilizing the MCB data when determining that the open-switch event occurred”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
27. Claim 15 is directed to “determining, … based at least in part on the voltage value being non-zero and the at least one of the power value or the current value of the circuit being zero, that an open-switch event occurred”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure a smart metering device to perform actions comprising: measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site; measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site; … by the smart metering device and … notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 15 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
27.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 15 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
27.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 15 recites: “determining, … based at least in part on the voltage value being non-zero and the at least one of the power value or the current value of the circuit being zero, that an open-switch event occurred”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
27.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 15 does not claim a particular machine because the smart metering device, transformer, circuit and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the processor that is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state.
Furthermore, the operating of a smart metering device context, is simply linking the claim to use context but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the smart metering device context. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using smart metering devices, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for using a smart metering device).
27.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 15 recites the additional element(s) “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure a smart metering device to perform actions comprising: measuring a voltage value of a transformer-side of a service site; measuring at least one of a power value or a current value of a circuit of the service site; … by the smart metering device and … notifying a customer of the service site of the open-switch event, wherein the notifying is based at least in part on the determining” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see response 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
28. Claim 16 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: disaggregating a load measured by the smart metering device to determine two or more constituent devices of the load; and learning an association between the two or more constituent devices and the circuit; wherein the determining that the open-switch event occurred is additionally based at least in part on the association”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see Stewart Pub. No.: US 2017 /0271877, abstract, [0007] and [0040]. Also see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
29. Claim 17 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: disaggregating a load measured by the smart metering device to determine two or more constituent devices of the load; and associating the two or more constituent devices with the circuit, wherein the associating is based at least in part on simultaneous removal of loads associated with the two or more constituent devices from load measured by the smart metering device; wherein the determining that the open-switch event that occurred is additionally based at least in part on simultaneous removal of loads associated with the two or more constituent devices from load measured by the smart metering device”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see Stewart Pub. No.: US 2017 /0271877, abstract, [0007] and [0040]. Also see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
30. Claim 18 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: receiving data indicating operation of devices and combinations of devices at the service site, wherein each device is associated with the circuit or one or more other circuits of a circuit breaker box, and at least one of the circuit or the one or more other circuits of the circuit breaker box is associated with a respective miniature circuit breakers (MCBs); learning one or more combinations of appliance use that result in an open switch in an MCB; and based at least in part on the learning, notifying the customer of one or more potential causes of one or more openings of one or more breaker switches”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
31. Claim 19 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “receiving a notification of an open-switch event from a miniature circuit breaker (MCB) of the service site, wherein the MCB is monitoring the circuit or one or more other circuits at the service site, wherein notifying the customer of the service site additionally comprises notifying the customer of the open-switch event and an identity of the MCB”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
32. Claim 20 depends on claim 15, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the actions additionally comprise: receiving miniature circuit breaker (MCB) data comprising at least one of: a switch setting; a voltage value; a current value; a power value; and an energy value from an MCB; and utilizing the MCB data when determining that the open-switch event occurred”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context (see responses 4, 7, 8 above and the prior art made of record below, which was provided as well on the prior office action and on the IDS).
Furthermore, claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/smart-metering-device-context.
33. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Clark (which was provided in the previous office action) teaches “A computer system analyzes data from smart meters. The computer system can, for example, analyze the data from a smart meter to determine if the smart meter is connected to a different distribution transformer, if the smart meter is at a customer site where power theft is occurring, if the smart meter is located at a customer site having a solar photovoltaic system, if the smart meter is located at a customer site having an electric vehicle, or if the smart meter is located at a grow house” (Abstract).
b) Stewart (Pub. No.: US 2017/0271877, which was provided in the previous office action) teaches “Techniques are described for disaggregation of renewable energy generation on an electricity distribution system. Aggregate power measurements are identified a distribution substation. Active power load of the distribution substation and active power generated by renewable energy sites can be disaggregated from the aggregate power measurements” (Abstract).
c) Driscoll (which was provided in the previous office action) teaches “Techniques for identifying electrical theft are described herein. In an example, a secondary voltage of a transformer may be inferred by repeated voltage and current measurement at each meter associated with the transformer. A difference in measured voltage values, divided by a difference in measured current values, estimates impedance at the meter. The calculated impedance, together with measured voltage and current values, determine a voltage at the transformer secondary. Such voltages calculated by each meter associated with a transformer may be averaged, to indicate the transformer secondary voltage. A transformer having lower-than-expected secondary voltage is identified, based in part on comparison to the secondary voltages of other transformers” (Abstract).
d) Kann (Pub. No.: US 2016/0109491, which was provided in the previous office action) teaches “A power line configuration or topology may be determined by identifying metering nodes that have time-stamped voltage values that correlate with voltage values measured at a transformer or other metering nodes at substantially the same time. A correlation between the time-stamped voltage values may be calculated by, in some examples, comparing a difference of a first time-stamped voltage value of a meter and a second time-stamped voltage value of a transformer or the second metering node to a predetermined threshold. If the difference is below the threshold, the metering node may be determined to be connected to the transformer or second metering node by a power distribution line” (Abstract).
e) Sonderegger (which was provided in the previous office action) teaches “Techniques for detecting electrical meter bypass theft are described herein. In one example, a time-series of voltage changes and current-changes associated with electrical consumption measured at a meter are obtained. The time series may track associated voltage and current changes at short intervals” (Abstract).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-00.
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). If you would 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights