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 .
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed 1/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 2 & 6 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The independent claims (1, 3, & 10) all have been amended to add the limitations "wherein the obtaining of the first current deviation waveform and the second current deviation waveform further comprises determining a current difference waveform that sets out a difference between the current on the two sides of the transformer based on the measured current, predicting a first predicted current waveform, forward in time, and a second predicted current waveform, backwards in time, from the current difference waveform, and obtaining the first current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the first predicted current waveform and the second current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the second predicted current waveform . . . ."
The applicant argues that this amendment renders the claims allowable because these limitations are not an abstract idea or other judicial exception. However, these limitations are merely data gathering and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations). In the latter instance, they further define the previously-identified abstract idea; in the former, they contribute only insignificant extra-solution activity.
The applicant further argues that predicting waveforms forward and backward temporally and obtaining deviations (differences) are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality solving a specific problem related to a “pulse.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously in the rejections of record, obtaining waveforms is mere data gathering, refining the difference waveform is a mental process, analyzing extracted information is a mathematical concept, and determining a service window is a mental process, the combination of which do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner also notes that the word “pulse” appears nowhere in the claims.
Therefore, the amended claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 recite a series of steps for monitoring a transformer. Thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 8 & 9 recite a device and a product, respectively, for monitoring a transformer. Thus, the claims are to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, this claim is to a manufacture (an article produced from materials), which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Representative claim 1 recites:
A method for monitoring a transformer comprising a tap changer, said transformer having at least two magnetically coupled windings and the tap changer comprising at least one impedance elements and a switch configured to gradually pass a load current through the at least one impedance element when changing between two tap changer positions during a tap change operation, the method being performed in a monitoring device and comprising:
obtaining waveforms of measured current recorded at a first and second transformer sides;
processing the recorded waveforms for obtaining at least one current difference waveform representing a tap change operation, wherein the processing of recorded waveforms comprises obtaining a first current deviation waveform and a second current deviation waveform, wherein the obtaining of the first current deviation waveform and the second current deviation waveform further comprises determining a current difference waveform that sets out a difference between the current on the two sides of the transformer based on the measured current, predicting a first predicted current waveform, forward in time, and a second predicted current waveform, backwards in time, from the current difference waveform, and obtaining the first current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the first predicted current waveform and the second current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the second predicted current waveform; [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations]
refining the current difference waveform by adding the first current deviation waveform to the second current deviation waveform and removing a steady component based on load current; [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)]
extracting and storing information indicative of the health of the tap changer from said at least one waveform that represents the tap change operation, wherein the extracted information comprises a circulating current time covering at least a part of the tap change operation and determined from a circulating current start time and a circulating current end time of the tap change operation, and/or a circulating current amplitude of said at least one waveform representing the tap change operation; and
analyzing the extracted information to estimate wear of the tap changer [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations] and, based on the estimated wear, determining a service window for performing maintenance [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements:
obtaining waveforms of measured current recorded at a first and second transformer sides; [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are routine data gathering] and
extracting and storing information indicative of the health of the tap changer from said at least one waveform that represents the tap change operation, wherein the extracted information comprises a circulating current time covering at least a part of the tap change operation and determined from a circulating current start time and a circulating current end time of the tap change operation, and/or a circulating current amplitude of said at least one waveform representing the tap change operation. [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are routine data gathering]
The examiner finds that each of those additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additional Claims
The analysis above regarding claim 1 applies mutandis mutatis to independent claims 3 and 10, as well as dependent claim 9, those claims having substantially the same elements.
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “wherein the circulating current start time is extracted as the start of the first current deviation waveform, and the circulating current end time is extracted as the end of the second current deviation waveform” further describes that data gathering step of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the additional element “wherein processing the recorded waveforms further comprises refining the current difference waveform by adding the first current deviation waveform to the second current deviation waveform and removing a steady component based on load current” is a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 7, the additional elements “wherein processing the recorded waveforms for obtaining the at least one power loss waveform representing a tap change operation further comprises determining a power loss difference waveform that sets out a difference between the power on the two sides of the transformer based on the measured current and voltages predicting a predicted power waveform obtaining a power deviation waveform as a difference between the power loss difference waveform and the predicted power waveform” further describes that data gathering step of claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, the additional element “said transformer having at least two magnetically coupled windings arranged at a first and a second transformer side and the tap changer comprising at least one impedance element and a switch configured to gradually pass load current through the at least one impedance element when changing between two tap changer positions during a tap change operation, the monitoring device comprising a waveform analyzer operative to monitor the transformer according to the method of claim 1” merely define the field of use.
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner makes no prior art rejections of record at this time because the prior art neither discloses nor fairly suggest the following limitations:
in claim 1, “A method for monitoring a transformer comprising . . . wherein the obtaining of the first current deviation waveform and the second current deviation waveform further comprises determining a current difference waveform that sets out a difference between the current on the two sides of the transformer based on the measured current, predicting a first predicted current waveform, forward in time, and a second predicted current waveform, backwards in time, from the current difference waveform, and obtaining the first current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the first predicted current waveform and the second current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the second predicted current waveform; refining the current difference waveform by adding the first current deviation waveform to the second current deviation waveform and removing a steady component based on load current;”
in claim 3, “A method for monitoring a transformer comprising . . . wherein determining the circulating current start time and the circulating current end time comprises processing the recorded waveforms and obtaining a first current deviation waveform and a second current deviation waveform from the current difference waveform, and wherein obtaining the first current deviation waveform and the second current deviation waveform further comprises determining a current difference waveform that sets out a difference between the current on the two sides of the transformer based on the measured current, predicting a first predicted current waveform, forward in time, and a second predicted current waveform, backwards in time, from the current difference waveform, obtaining the first current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the first predicted current waveforms and obtaining the second current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the second predicted current waveform;” and
in claim 10, “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a waveform analyzer, causes the waveform analyzer to perform operations comprising . . . wherein the obtaining of the first current deviation waveform and the second current deviation waveform further comprises determining a current difference waveform that sets out a difference between the current on the two sides of the transformer based on the measured current, predicting a first predicted current waveform, forward in time, and a second predicted current waveform, backwards in time, from the current difference waveform, and obtaining the first current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the first predicted current waveform and the second current deviation waveform as a difference between the difference waveform and the second predicted current waveform; refining the current difference waveform by adding the first current deviation waveform to the second current deviation waveform and removing a steady component based on load current;”
in combination with all other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WIPO Document WO2021025612A1 to Athikessavan et al. discloses a method and a system of detecting winding fault under online operation of an electrical machine.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0195933 to Bengtsson et al. discloses monitoring a transformer comprising a tap changer.
United States Patent No. 10,224,718 to Sun discloses a transient impedance transformer based on ac voltage regulating electronic switch.
Korean Patent Document No. KR2015037267A to Cho et al. discloses a tap changing transformer and method for fault diagnosis.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0306471 to Green et al. discloses a method and apparatus for performing on-load mechanical switching operations.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0129524 to Kondo et al. discloses a tap change operation monitoring apparatus for an on-load tap changer.
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 Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857