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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 21, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 1 recite(s) an electronic device (a machine).
Independent claim 8 recite(s) A non-transitory, computer-readable medium (a machine).
Independent claim 15 recite(s) a method to be performed by processing circuitry (a process).
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitation of claims 1, 8 and 15 of performing the steps of receive a set of electronic devices attributes, receive a set of sampling criteria, perform a scan, and establish a connection, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, “a receiver”, “a transmitter” and “a smart meter” for claim 1, reciting “processing circuitry”, “a smart meter” and “a transmitter” for claim 8 and reciting “processing circuitry” and “a smart meter” for claim 15, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor”, “processing circuitry”, “a receiver”, “a transmitter” and “a smart meter” language, the steps of claims 1, 8 and 15 encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to receive electronic device attributes and sampling criteria, use that to scan a smart meter and establish a connection to the smart meter. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 8 and 15 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a receiver”, “a transmitter” and “a smart meter”. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “processing circuitry”, “a smart meter” and “a transmitter”. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “processing circuitry” and “a smart meter”. The limitations of “a processor”, “processing circuitry”, “a receiver”, “a transmitter” and “a smart meter” of claims 1, 8 and 15 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and or computer components performing generic computer functions to receive electronic device attributes and sampling criteria, use that to scan a smart meter and establish a connection to the smart meter) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A: Prong 2), claims 1, 8 and 15 do contain any additional elements. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “processing circuitry”, “a receiver”, “a transmitter” and “a smart meter” to perform the steps of receive a set of electronic devices attributes, receive a set of sampling criteria, perform a scan, and establish a connection which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of “a receiver”, “a transmitter” and “a smart meter”, and there is no indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic computer component used in a well-understood, routine, and convention function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further adds to the set of electronic devices attributes of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further adds to the set of sampling criteria of claim 2. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further adds to the perform the scan of claim 3. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 5. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 6. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, this claim further adds to the set of electronic devices attributes of claim 8. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, this claim further adds to the set of sampling criteria of claim 9. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11, this claim further adds to the set of sampling criteria of claim 9. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 8. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 12. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 13. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16, this claim further adds to the set of electronic devices attributes of claim 15. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 15 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17, this claim further adds to the set of sampling criteria of claim 15. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 15 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 15. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 15 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 18. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 15 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, this claim further adds to the establish the connection of claim 19. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 15 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins et al. US2022/0120794 (called Collins hereinafter).
Regarding independent claim 1, Collins teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1; utility server 136 with components in system 100) comprising:
a transmitter (Fig. 1; para [0026]; utility server 136 communicates with power data recorders 108 of smart meters 116);
a receiver (Fig. 1; para [0026]; utility server 136 communicates with power data recorders 108 of smart meters 116);
a processor (Fig. 1; processor of utility server 136) coupled to the transmitter and receiver, the processor configured to:
receive a set of electronic devices attributes (Fig. 1; power data and location of associated premises 104 with associated smart meters 116);
cause the receiver to receive a set of sampling criteria (Fig. 1; para [0020]; the smart meters 116 are established in the meter mesh network 120);
cause the receiver to perform a scan for a smart meter based on the set of electronic devices attributes satisfying at least one criterion of the set of sampling criteria (Fig. 1; the utility server 136 can query the power data recorders 108 of the smart meters 116 on premises 104); and
establish a connection with the smart meter based on receiving an indication of the smart meter via the scan (Fig. 1; para [0030]; connecting the smart meter to the meter mesh network after power outage).
Regarding claim 2, Collins teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the set of electronic devices attributes comprises a network connection associated with the electronic device (Fig. 1; para [0020]; mesh network 120).
Regarding claim 3, Collins teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the set of sampling criteria comprises a list of network connections associated with the smart meter (Fig. 1; para [0020]; mesh network 120 with other devices in the mesh network).
Regarding claim 4, Collins teaches the electronic device of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause the receiver to initiate the scan based on a correlation between the network connection associated with the electronic device and the list of network connections associated with the smart meter (Fig. 1; para [0020 and 0030]; the utility server 136 scans and connects a smart meter into the meter mesh network 120 which communicates with all other smart meters in the meter mesh network).
Regarding claim 5, Collins teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause the transmitter to transmit a sample request to the smart meter based on the connection (Fig. 1; para [0022 and 0026] smart meter 116 power flow data is queried by the utility server 136).
Regarding claim 6, Collins teaches the electronic device of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause the receiver to receive energy data associated with the smart meter based on the sample request (Fig. 1; para [0022 and 0026] smart meter 116 power flow data is transmitted to the utility server 136).
Regarding claim 7, Collins teaches the electronic device of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the energy data comprises a daily power consumption associated with the smart meter (Fig. 1; para [0011 and 0018]; the power consumed in the premises 104 is recorded at a high rate of every 10-1000 milliseconds which would indicate daily power consumption).
Regarding independent claim 8, Collins teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions, that when executed by processing circuitry (Fig. 1; processor of utility server 136 with components in system 100), cause the processing circuitry to:
receive a set of electronic device attributes (Fig. 1; power data and location of associated premises 104 with associated smart meters 116);
receive a set of sampling criteria (Fig. 1; para [0020]; the smart meters 116 are established in the meter mesh network 120);
perform a scan for a smart meter based on the set of electronic devices attributes satisfying at least one criterion of the set of sampling criteria (Fig. 1; the utility server 136 can query the power data recorders 108 of the smart meters 116 on premises 104); and
establish, via a transmitter (Fig. 1; para [0026]; utility server 136 communicates with power data recorders 108 of smart meters 116), a connection with the smart meter based on receiving an indication of the smart meter via the scan (Fig. 1; para [0030]; connecting the smart meter to the meter mesh network after power outage).
Regarding claim 9, Collins teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the set of electronic devices attributes comprises a location associated with an electronic device (Fig. 1; para [0020]; premises 104 associated with their smart meter 116 to send data).
Regarding claim 10, Collins teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the set of sampling criteria comprises a threshold distance between the electronic device and the smart meter (Fig. 1; data mesh network 147 and/or mesh network 120 has a threshold distance of the operating area of the utility company).
Regarding claim 11, Collins teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the set of sampling criteria comprises a geofence associated with the electronic device (Fig. 1; data mesh network 147 and/or mesh network 120 has an operating area that the utility company operates in).
Regarding claim 12, Collins teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to transmit, via the transmitter, a sample request to the smart meter based on the connection (Fig. 1; para [0022 and 0026] smart meter 116 power flow data is queried by the utility server 136).
Regarding claim 13, Collins teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processing circuitry to receive energy data associated with the smart meter based on the sample request (Fig. 1; para [0022 and 0026] smart meter 116 power flow data is transmitted to the utility server 136).
Regarding claim 14, Collins teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 13, and further teaches wherein the energy data comprises an instantaneous power consumption associated with the smart meter (Fig. 1; para [0011 and 0018]; the power consumed in the premises 104 is recorded at a high rate of every 10-1000 milliseconds which would indicate daily power consumption).
Regarding independent claim 15, Collins teaches a method (Abstract) to be performed by processing circuitry (Fig. 1; processor of utility server 136 with components in system 100) comprising:
receiving a set of electronic device attributes (Fig. 1; power data and location of associated premises 104 with associated smart meters 116);
receiving a set of sampling criteria (Fig. 1; para [0020]; the smart meters 116 are established in the meter mesh network 120);
performing a scan for a smart meter based on the set of electronic devices attributes and the set of sampling criteria (Fig. 1; the utility server 136 can query the power data recorders 108 of the smart meters 116 on premises 104); and
establishing a connection with the smart meter based on receiving an indication of the smart meter via the scan (Fig. 1; para [0030]; connecting the smart meter to the meter mesh network after power outage).
Regarding claim 16, Collins teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the set of electronic devices attributes comprises a location (Fig. 1; para [0020]; premises 104 associated with their smart meter 116 to send data) associated with an electronic device (Fig. 1; utility server 136 with components in system 100) or a network connection associated with the electronic device (Fig. 1; para [0020]; mesh network 120).
Regarding claim 17, Collins teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the set of sampling criteria comprises a threshold distance between an electronic device and the smart meter, a geofence associated with the electronic device, or a list of network connections associated with the smart meter (Fig. 1; para [0020]; mesh network 120 with other devices in the mesh network).
Regarding claim 18, Collins teaches the method of claim 15, and further teaches comprising transmitting a sample request to the smart meter based on the connection (Fig. 1; para [0022 and 0026] smart meter 116 power flow data is queried by the utility server 136).
Regarding claim 19, Collins teaches the method of claim 18, and further teaches comprising receiving energy data associated with the smart meter based on the sample request (Fig. 1; para [0022 and 0026] smart meter 116 power flow data is transmitted to the utility server 136).
Regarding claim 20, Collins teaches the method of claim 19, and further teaches wherein the energy data comprises an instantaneous power consumption associated with the smart meter (Fig. 1; para [0011 and 0018]; the power consumed in the premises 104 is recorded at a high rate of every 10-1000 milliseconds which would indicate daily power consumption).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bindea et al. discloses “Management of power-distribution system” (see US2019/0123580)
Soma et al. discloses “Smart meter system, management router, and meter” (see US2014/0167979)
Venkatraman et al. discloses “Method and apparatus for determining location using a smart meter as a location reference” (see US2014/0232553)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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 at (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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights