Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because
Regarding claim 1,
At Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“determining, based on the received PDU data and the received activity data, associations between the PDU outlets and the electrical equipment units to determine the electrical wiring connection configuration between the outlets of the PDUs and the electrical equipment units.” The limitation is a mental process, reasonably performed in the mind. The BRI of the limitations – as described by the specification – encompass a person mentally observing and determining that a person or a service personnel manually perform “mapping of the topology or configuration of electrical wiring of an electrical power system. That is, the physical wiring links may be inspected manually by service personal” in Page 1. Thus, a person can determine electrical wiring connection configuration between the outlet of the PUDs and the electrical equipment units based on the data, which is the observation.
“for each respective electrical equipment unit of the electrical equipment units: estimating a model that describes the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit as a function of the power usage of each of the PDU outlets” The limitation is a mental process, reasonably performed in the mind. Estimating is a rough calculation or an approximate judgement, as defined in Merriam-Webster. A model is a process, an algorithm or a mathematical framework to describe, analyze, or predict how the system or process works. A person can estimate or judge how the process or the system works. Therefore, a person can estimate a model that describes the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit as a function of the power usage of each of the PDU outlets.
“wherein the power usage of each of the PDU outlets has a respective coefficient associated therewith, each coefficient being indicative of a proportion of the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit that relates to the respective PDU outlet” This is a mathematical concept. The claim limitation discloses a mathematical relationship between variable and coefficient since a coefficient is a number that measures or quantifies a factor in relation to other factors.
“wherein estimating the model comprises estimating a value of each of the coefficients.” The limitation is a mathematical concept. As discussed above, estimating is a rough calculation or an approximate judgement, as defined in Merriam-Webster. As discussed above, a coefficient is a number that measures or quantifies a factor in relation to other factors. Thus, estimating a value of each of the coefficients is a mathematical relationships or calculations to estimate or calculate each of coefficients.
“wherein, for each of the PDU outlets based on the estimated value of the respective coefficient being greater than a prescribed threshold value, determining the respective PDU outlet to be associated with the respective electrical equipment unit” The limitation is a mental process, reasonably performed in the mind. Determining is to decide. Furthermore, “the respective PDU outlet to be associated with the respective electrical equipment unit” is a relationship between PDU outlet and the electrical equipment. Also, “for each of the PDU outlets based on the estimated value of the respective coefficient being greater than a prescribed threshold value” is an observation or a mathematical relationship of two variables. Thus, a person can determine a relationship between two variables in human mind.
“selecting, based on the estimated model, which of the PDU outlets are associated with the respective electrical equipment unit.” The limitation is a mental process, reasonably performed in the mind. Select is a pick or choose something from a group of options. A person can pick or choose which one variable is associated or related to another variable in human mind.
“for each respective PDU outlet of the PDU outlets: estimating a model that describes the power usage of the respective PDU outlet as a function of the activity of each of the electrical equipment units” The limitation is a mental process, reasonably performed in the mind. A discussed above, estimating is a rough calculation or an approximate judgement, as defined in Merriam-Webster. Also, a model is a process, an algorithm or a mathematical framework to describe, analyze, or predict how the system or process works. A person can estimate or judge how the process or the system works. Therefore, a person can estimate a model that describes the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit as a function of the power usage of each of the PDU outlets.
“selecting, based on the estimated model, which of the electrical equipment units are associated with the respective PDU outlet” The limitation is a mental process, reasonably performed in the mind. As discussed above, select is a pick or choose something from a group of options. A person can pick or choose which one variable is associated or related to another variable in human mind.
At Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“an electrical power system comprising a plurality of power distribution units PDUs and a plurality of electrical equipment units to be provided with electrical power.” The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to no more than generic computing elements.
“receiving PDU data indicative of power usage of each of the PDU outlets over time; receiving activity data indicative of one or more activity metrics for each of the electrical equipment units over time” is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering and output. The caveat of the claim limitation is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular field of use (e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi. Electric Power example). The database itself is generically recited at a high level of generality.
“transmitting an alert or a control signal based at least in part on the determined electrical wiring connection configuration” The claim limitation of in response to the determination is an example of an “apply it” limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) – the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details on how the solution is accomplished”). In addition, the claim limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and amount to a generic computing element or genal linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computing or electronic components.
Regarding claim 7,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“wherein, if based on the estimated value of the respective coefficient being within a prescribed tolerance from zero, determining the respective PDU outlet to not be associated with the respective electrical equipment unit” The claim limitation recites a mathematical concept to estimating coefficients of values and comparing the estimated value to a threshold.” The claim limitation is a mental process. “determining” is to decide. Furthermore, the claim limitation is to determine or decide based on observation or a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 8,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“wherein the selection step comprises, for the respective PDU outlet of the PDU outlets: estimating a further model that describes the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit as a function of the power usage of each of the PDU outlets other than the respective PDU outlet; and, determining that the respective PDU outlets is associated with the respective electrical equipment unit based on the estimated activity of the further model being within a prescribed tolerance of the estimated activity of the model.” These limitations are mental process. “estimating” is roughly calculating or judging a value, number, quantity, or extent of something. “determining” is to roughly decide based on the estimation and a metaethical concept.
Regarding claim 9,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“wherein the selection step further comprises, for a second respective PDU outlet of the PDU outlets: estimating a second further model that describe the activity of the second respective electrical equipment unit as a function of the power usage of each of the PDU outlets other than the second respective PDU outlet at issue” The limitation is a mental process, reasonably performed in the mind. Estimating is a rough calculation or an approximate judgement, as defined in Merriam-Webster. A model is a process, an algorithm or a mathematical framework to describe, analyze, or predict how the system or process works. A person can estimate or judge how the process or the system works. Therefore, a person can estimate a model that describes the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit as a function of the power usage of each of the PDU outlets.
“wherein, if the estimated activity of the further model is not within a prescribed tolerance, then said one of the PDU outlets is discarded from the model.” The claim limitation is a mental process. First, a determination of “if the estimated activity of the further model is not within a prescribed tolerance” is a mental process based on a mathematical concept. Then, “said one of the PDU outlets is discarded from the model” is a mental process. As the PUD outlet is discarded from the model, since the model is also a mathematical concept, the discarding something from the model is to discard the PDU outlet from consideration or the mental process.
Regarding claim 10,
At Step 2, Prong 2:
“wherein the further model describes the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit as a function of the power usage of those PDU outlets not previously discarded from the model.” The claim limitation is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity since the caveat of the claim limitation is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular file of use (e.g., see MPEP 2103.05(h) (vi. Electric Power example).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception - using generic computing components - and general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping.
Regarding claim 11,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“wherein the steps of estimating the model and selecting which of the PDU outlets are associated with the respective electrical equipment unit are performed simultaneously.” These limitations are mental process. “estimating” is roughly calculating or judging a value, number, quantity, or extent of something.
Regarding claim 13,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“calculating a distance metric between the power usage of each PDU outlet and the one or more activity metrics of each of the electrical equipment units; and, determining, based on the calculated distance metrics, which of the PDU outlets are associated with each of the respective electrical equipment units.” These limitations are mathematical concept, such as “calculating” and a mental process, such as “determining” based on the mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 14,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“solving a linear sum assignment problem to minimise a sum of the distance metrics between associated PDU outlets and electrical equipment units.” The limitation is a mathematical concept.
“wherein each electrical equipment unit is associated with more than one of the PDUs.” The claim limitation is a mental process. An association is to connect something with something else in one’s mind.
Regarding claim 16,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“analysing the determined electrical wiring configuration against one or more defined constraints to be satisfied by the electrical wiring configuration” The claim limitation is a mental process. “analyzing” is examining methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of something, typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation.
At Step 2, Prong 2:
“outputting an action based on the determined electrical wiring configuration not satisfying each of the constraints” is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity, “instructions to display information” (See. MPEP 2106.05(a)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
“wherein the one or more defined constraints comprises a redundancy constraint comprising, for each of the plurality of electrical equipment units, that: the respective electrical equipment unit must be connected to at least two of the PDUs; and, at least two of the PDUs to which the respective electrical equipment unit is connected must receive power from different power sources of the electrical power system.” The claim limitation is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity since the caveat of the claim limitation is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular file of use (e.g., see MPEP 2103.05(h) (vi. Electric Power example).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception - using generic computing components - and general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping.
Regarding claim 18,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“identifying one or more of the electrical equipment units that provide critical functionality, wherein only the identified one or more electrical equipment units are analysed against the redundancy constraint.” The claim limitation is a mental process. “identifying” is to associate something closely with another.
Regarding claim 19,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“selecting a PDU outlet from one or more available PDU outlets of the plurality of PDU outlets.” The claim limitation is a mental process. “selecting” is choose as being the best or most suitable.
At Step 2, Prong 2:
“wherein outputting the action comprises providing a recommendation to connect the respective electrical equipment unit to the selected PDU outlet” is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity, “instructions to display information” (See. MPEP 2106.05(a)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
“wherein selection of the PDU outlet from the plurality of PDU outlets is based on one or more of: a physical proximity of the respective electrical equipment unit to the one or more available PDU outlets; a respective current loading of each of a plurality of power sources providing power to the plurality of PDUs” The claim limitation is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity since the caveat of the claim limitation is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular file of use (e.g., see MPEP 2103.05(h) (vi. Electric Power example).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception - using generic computing components - and general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping.
Regarding claim 21,
At Step 2, Prong 2:
“wherein the one or more defined constraints includes one or more of: each of the PDUs has no more than a defined maximum number of electrical equipment units connected thereto; and, a particular electrical equipment unit must be connected to a PDU in a defined subset of the PDUs.” The claim limitation is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity since the caveat of the claim limitation is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular file of use (e.g., see MPEP 2103.05(h) (vi. Electric Power example).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception - using generic computing components - and general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping.
Regarding claim 22,
At Step 2, Prong 2:
“wherein outputting the action includes one or more of: generating an alarm, optionally an audio and/or visual alarm; and, outputting a notification to one or more personnel.” The claim limitation is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering and output. The caveat is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular field of use (e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi. Electric Power example). The database itself is generically recited at a high level of generality.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception - using generic computing components - and general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping.
Regarding claim 23,
At Step 2, Prong 1:
“comparing the determined associations at a current time step against previously determined associations from a previous time step to identify changes in the wiring configuration; and, for each identified change, determining whether the change is an unexpected change, and outputting an action based on the change being the unexpected change.” These claim limitations are a mental process. “comparing” is to estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between. “determining” is to cause something to occur in a particular way.
Regarding claim 25,
At Step 2, Prong 2:
“wherein the received PDU data is time series data indicative of power usage of the PDU outlets over a defined historical time period, and wherein the received activity data is time series data indicative of activity metrics of the electrical equipment units over the defined historical time period.” The claim limitation is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity since the caveat of the claim limitation is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular file of use (e.g., see MPEP 2103.05(h) (vi. Electric Power example).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception - using generic computing components - and general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping.
Regarding claim 29,
At Step 2, Prong 2:
“wherein the one or moreactivity metrics of each electrical equipment unit include one or more of: central processing unit (CPU) utilisation of the electrical equipment unit; memory utilisation of the electrical equipment unit; a number of bytes transferred in input/output operations generated by a process of the electrical equipment unit; disk accesses per second; and, graphics processing unit (GPU) activity of the electrical equipment unit.” The claim limitation is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity since the caveat of the claim limitation is a description of the nature of the data itself, and is at best a general link to a particular file of use (e.g., see MPEP 2103.05(h) (vi. Electric Power example).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception - using generic computing components - and general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the monitoring and data entry limitations (addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above) these steps are also well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping.
Regarding claim 30, the claim 30 is a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method according to claim 1. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. MENTAL PROCESS: D. The claims 31 is a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Regarding claim 31, the claim 31 is the apparatus claim 1. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. MENTAL PROCESS: D. The claims 31 is a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Regarding claim 32,
At Step 2A, Prong 2:
“wherein the selected PDU outlet is a PDU outlet that receives power from the power source having the lowest current loading.” The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to no more than generic computing elements.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B:
The claim limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the claim limitation, the claim limitation “a PDU outlet that receives power from the power source having the lowest current loading” discloses a description of a power outlet, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Regarding claim 33,
At Step 2A, Prong 1:
“wherein the model is a linear regression model of activity of the respective electrical equipment unit as a function of power usage of each of the PDU outlets.” The claim limitation is a mathematical concept. A linear regression model is a statistical method to predict a value of dependent output variable by fitting a straight line to a set of data. Therefore, the claim limitation recites mathematical calculation.
“wherein each coefficient is constrained to be non-negative so that the coefficients collectively represent non-negative proportions of the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit attributable to the respective PDU outlets” The claim limitation is a mathematical concept. As discussed above, the claim limitation discloses a mathematical relationship between variable and coefficient since a coefficient is a number that measures or quantifies a factor in relation to other factors. Furthermore, the claim limitation describes a mathematical relationship of the coefficient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/2026, with respect to “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Specifically, it is respectfully submitted that independent claims 1 and 31------and their dependent claims 2, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, and 29-30-are not directed to an abstract idea, have a practical application and contain a number of particular limitations which ensure that no underlying idea would be tied up. Additionally it is respectfully submitted that claims 1, 31 and their dependents recite features, which alone and in combination, provide improvements to the field of electrical power systems. Finally, independent claims 1 and 31 have been amended to recite features which further emphasize the practical application of the inventive concept.
…
See, Detailed Action, at pages 2-4. Rather, claims 1 and 31 are directed to improving the operation of an electrical power system that includes power distribution units (PDUs) and electrical equipment units-which is categorically something that cannot be performed by the human mind. See, e.g., page 9, lines 4-6; page 10, lines 14-21; and page 12, lines 11-12 of the Present Specification.
Electrical power systems control the delivery of electrical power to individual electrical equipment units (e.g., servers in a data center) that require such electrical power using PDUs. Specifically, electrical power is delivered by these systems via electrical wiring connections that are run between outlets of the PD Us (PDU outlets) and the respective electrical equipment units. See, e.g., page 1, lines 21-26 of the Present Specification. The particular topology describing how each electrical wiring connection is associated with particular PDU outlets and electrical equipment units is known in the art as an "electrical wiring connection configuration." Having a clear and accurate description of the precise electrical wiring connection configuration in place at a particular time is key to ensuring that reliable operation and control of the electrical power system, including the PDUs and the powered electrical equipment units. See, e.g., page 1, line 28 -page 2; line 4, page 9, lines 19-28; page 10, lines 4-5, page 11, lines 5-25, page 19, lines 26-32; page 20, lines 1-18 of the Present Specification.
It is a long-felt problem in the art, however, that the present methods for determining the electrical wiring connection configuration are slow, resource intensive, and error prone. Indeed, commonly used methods are mere manual ones, requiring physical inspection and inherently having time-induced inaccuracies. See, e.g., page 2 lines 6-14. The present invention is in stark-contrast to the human-centric prior art. Instead, it provides an automated, computer-centric solution that removes the human element from the task Thus, contrary to what the Office suggests, the record shows that the claimed invention is inherently not capable of being performed in the human mind. Moreover, the improvements provided by the present invention (e.g. increasing computational timing, efficiency, and accuracy) are necessarily tied to the computer-implemented nature of the invention, which also is integrated into the amended independent claims at least by the computer models that are estimated using multi-dimensional data-something a human mind is incapable of doing ( even with the aid of pen and paper). See, e.g., pages 1-2 lines 31-39, page 9 lines 4-6, and page 10 lines 20-21 of the Present Specification. As such, because the claimed invention cannot practically be performed in the human mind, it is categorically not a mental process. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.0l(a)(2)II ("concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not 'mental processes."').
As set forth in the Office's guidance, an element or combination of elements which reflect a technical improvement (e.g., to a computer or other technology) provide that a claim is directed to a practical application. As just described, the present invention is deeply routed in the computer arts, with the technical improvement tied to the collection of steps effecting the determination of the electrical wiring configuration through the use of computer models estimated based on a unique set of data. This solution is fully integrated into the practical application, particularly due to the preceding steps of obtaining the unique data and then subsequent transmitting of a particular computer signal based on the determined electrical wiring connection.
Remarks Pages 9-11
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. As applicant acknowledges and as disclosed in the specification in page 1, “mapping of the topology or configuration of electrical wiring of an electrical power system. That is, the physical wiring links may be inspected manually by service personal.” Thus, people of ordinary skill in the art routinely configure wire connection of the electrical power system. As discussed above in the claim rejection, the claim limitation “determining, based on the received PDU data and the received activity data, associations between the PDU outlets and the electrical equipment units to determine the electrical wiring connection configuration between the outlets of the PDUs and the electrical equipment units” discloses to determine relationship between the PDU outlets and the electrical equipment units based on received data, which is to determine the electrical wiring connection. Thus, determining a relationship between two variables based on a collected data is a mental process that a person can decide or judge in human mind. Furthermore, as discussed above, the wire connection configuration of the electrical power system has been routinely performed by a person. Examiner also respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that it provides an automated, computer-centric solution that removes the human element from the task…the claimed invention is inherently not capable of being performed in the human mind…the amended independent claims at least by the computer models that are estimated using multi-dimensional data-something a human mind is incapable of doing (even with the aid of pen and paper). See e.g., 1-2 lines 31-39, page 9 lines 4-6, page 10 lines 20-21 of the Present Specification. As discussed above in the claim rejection, the claim limitation recites a mental process, such as the claim limitations “estimating a model…” “determining…” “selecting…” and mathematical concepts, such as the claim limitations “…a respective coefficient…” “each coefficient being indicative of…” “estimating a value of each of the coefficients” “the estimated value of the respective coefficient being greater than a prescribed threshold value.” The specification simply sets an improvement but in a conclusory manner. Furthermore, the claim limitations as a whole do not include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant argument that This solution is fully integrated into the practical application, particularly due to the preceding steps of obtaining the unique data and then subsequent transmitting of a particular computer signal based on the determined electrical wiring connection. The claim limitations recite “PDU data indicative of power usage of each of the PDU outlets over time” “activity data indicative of one or more activity metrics for each of the electrical equipment units over time.” The claim limitations simply recites a step of receiving data, which does not further discloses any unique steps of collecting data or unique data set. Furthermore, “a value of the coefficients,” which is “indicative of a portion of the activity of the respective electrical equipment unit that relates to the respective PDU outlet” is a mathematical relationship between variables. Estimating the value of the respective coefficient is also a mathematical concept to predict or calculate the value of the coefficient, which is then compared to a threshold. Comparing a value that is mathematically estimated, to another value is a mathematical concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant argument. As discussed above in the claim limitation “transmitting an alert or a control signal based at least in part on the determined electrical wiring connection configuration” an example of an “apply it” limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) – the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details on how the solution is accomplished”). In addition, the claim limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and amount to a generic computing element or genal linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/3/2026, with respect to “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102” “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rejections of claims 5, 7, 18, 19, 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HYUN SOO KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights