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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
292
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the step (5) of “determining a relative location…” which involves a mathematical operation (see para [0045]). This step can be accomplished visually/mentally on the fly. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical operation for determining a relative location. The recited formula is clearly a mathematical formula or equation, and the processing/estimation is a mathematical calculation. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (c) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “edge processing devices” in step (3) in order to “determining” in step (5). Step(1) is claimed at a high level of generality and could describe the user determining a topology… known in the art. The element in step (4) amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculation (i.e., determining a relative location…). The element does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The method also recites a second additional element in step (c) of using “receiving an alarm…” and “receiving the requested data from the edge processing devices…”. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, there are no details about a particular structure or how the structure operates to obtain the estimation other than that it is being used to processing/estimating values from the measurements. The “edge processing devices” are used for data gathering and not necessary it is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation using the recited mathematical equation) without placing any limitation on how any structure operates to derive the determination of a relative position as a function of the “requested data”. In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of using the determination using “the measurements” without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the “the determination” in combination with the other values solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the claim invokes a generic “central processor” merely as a tool for generating the high impedance fault event necessary for data gathering in order to achieve the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The disclosure identifies a technical problem encountered in the field where the topology ranking is missing. The disclosure clearly describes how the topology is obtained. The claim, however, only requires part of the particular arrangement and therefore does not reflect the improvement discussed in the disclosure. The recited generic “central processor” merely adds a generic component necessary for using the data gathering to perform the method and therefore fails to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the second additional element in step (2) and (4), “receiving an alarm…” and “receiving the requested data from the edge processing devices…” was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the value in the formula since no link of how the value is possible with respect to the arrangement is provided in step (a) and (b). The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Further, the first additional element in step (1) and (2) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the step of receiving the requested data in step (2) is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as discussed in the original disclosure, is well-understood (e.g., para [0004], of the background of the original specification explains detection of high impedance fault localization known in the art). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims(s) 2 – 14, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Particularly:
Regarding Claims 4 – 8, 11 – 15, the limitations in the claims recite a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or extra-solution activity.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 the limitations are considered more than the abstract idea.
The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 – 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “a central processor, the plurality of edge processing devices connected to the central processor, the central processor configured to determine a relative location of the high impedance fault event in the radial power system using a topology ranking for each of the plurality of sensors” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 16.
Regarding Claims 17 – 20, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 16.
Comments
The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claim 1. Therefore, no prior art rejection for claim 1 is presented in this action. However, Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Singh et al. (US 2026/0056240 A1) suggests an electrical distribution system, comprising: a conduction system formed of at least one segment of multi-phase conductors configured to carry current between a current source and a current load, a measurement system operatively coupled to the multi-phase conductors to measure current information of the multi-phase conductors, the measurement system comprising at least one upstream sensor and at least one downstream sensor arranged at opposite ends of a measurement section of the multi-phase conductors (see claim 1).
Morgan et al. (US 2018/0241192 A1) teaches an electrical power distribution system comprising: a plurality of circuit protection devices coupled to an electrical power source, each circuit protection device comprising: a network interface communicatively coupled to a communication network including said plurality of circuit protection devices; an electrical current sensor configured to detect an electrical current associated with its circuit protection device; a processor; and a memory device storing instructions that, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to transmit, using said network interface, an electrical current communication to the communication network, the electrical current communication including an indication of the detected electrical current associated with said circuit protection device formatted according to a network communication protocol of the communication network; and an additional circuit protection device coupled to the electrical power source, said additional circuit protection device comprising: an additional network interface communicatively coupled to the communication network (see claim 1).
Hart et al. (US 6,453,248 B1) discloses a method for detecting a high impedance fault (HIF) in an electrical distribution system including a substation providing power to a feeder and one or more laterals coupled to the feeder for providing power to customer sites coupled to the lateral(s), as well as a plurality of circuit breakers associated with the feeder, comprising: receiving one or more reports of an outage at one or more customer sites, wherein the outage(s) may have been caused by a HIF (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, 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 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.
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights