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.
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.
1. 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.
2. 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations 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 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.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
2.1. 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 machine or process (Step 1: YES).
2.2.1. 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
2.2.2. 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, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. 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 including but not limited to magnetic sensors, current sensors, metering, etc. (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 smart metering device).
2.3. 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”, which are/is simply routine and 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, result notification and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim does 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).
3. 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.
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 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.
4. 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.
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 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.
5. 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.
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 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.
6. 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.
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 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.
7. 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.
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 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.
8. 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.
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 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.
9. 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.
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 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.
10. 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations 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 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.
Dependent claim 9 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
10.1. 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).
10.2.1. 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
10.2.2. 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, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. 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 including but not limited to magnetic sensors, current sensors, metering, etc. (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 smart metering device).
10.3. 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”, which are/is simply routine and 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, result notification and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim does 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).
11. 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.
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 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.
12. 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.
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 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.
13. 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.
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 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.
14. 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.
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 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.
15. 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.
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 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.
16. 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.
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 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.
17. 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations 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 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.
Dependent claim 15 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
17.1. 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).
17.2.1. 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
17.2.2. 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, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. 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 including but not limited to magnetic sensors, current sensors, metering, etc. (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 smart metering device).
17.3. 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”, which are/is simply routine and 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, result notification and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art made of record below and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim does 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).
18. 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.
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 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.
19. 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.
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 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.
20. 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.
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 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.
21. 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.
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 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.
22. 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.
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 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.
23. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps above in the independent claims.
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Clark (Pub. No.: US 2020/0064385) 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) 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 (Pub. No.: US 2016/0320431) 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) 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 (Pub. No.: US 2015/0241488) 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
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 Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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