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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collecting monitoring data from an electric power system, processing the monitoring data, and displaying an alarm list on a human machine interface (HMI) where list elements are sequentially arranged, selectively enlarged upon user input, and other list elements are shifted to maintain order while additional alarm-related information is displayed. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality as generic interface components, generic processing circuitry, and conventional HMI display operations that merely implement the abstract idea of organizing and presenting information on a display without improving the functioning of a computer, the HMI technology, or the electric power system itself. The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, including the “interface,” “processing circuit,” and HMI display operations such as enlarging list elements and shifting UI elements, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that merely apply the abstract idea in a generic computer and display environment without adding a technological improvement or inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an electric power system comprising a primary system, a secondary system, and a processing system configured to receive monitoring data and operate a human machine interface (HMI) to display and manage an alarm list with interactive enlargement and shifting of list elements based on user input. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional recited elements of a “primary system” and “secondary system” merely provide a generic electric power system environment in which the abstract idea of information presentation and user interaction is performed, without any improvement to electric power system control, monitoring architecture, or HMI functionality beyond conventional implementation. The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional system components, including the primary system, secondary system, and communicatively coupled processing system, are recited at a high level of generality and perform only generic data communication and display functions that amount to applying the abstract idea in a particular technological environment without any inventive concept or technical improvement.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for receiving monitoring data from an electric power system, processing the monitoring data, and controlling a human machine interface (HMI) to output a sequential alarm list, enable user selection of list elements, enlarge selected list elements, shift other list elements to maintain order, and display additional alarm-related information responsive to user input. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited method steps merely implement rules for organizing and presenting alarm information on a graphical interface using generic computer functionality, without any improvement to computer processing, graphical rendering techniques, or electric power system operations. The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the method steps, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, consist of routine data receiving, processing, and display operations performed by generic processing circuitry and HMI systems, which do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem or amount to an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform a method of receiving monitoring data, processing the data, and controlling a human machine interface (HMI) to display an alarm list with interactive enlargement, shifting of list elements, and output of additional alarm information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited computer-readable medium and execution environment merely serve as a generic implementation mechanism for performing the abstract idea on a conventional computer system without any improvement to computer functionality or technological processes. The claim(s) do/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer-readable medium and processor execution are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that simply execute the abstract idea of information presentation and user interface interaction without adding any inventive concept or meaningful technical limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Limitation "the at least one processing system" lacks antecedent basis in the claim hierarchy. Claim 4 depends from Claim 1, but Claim 1 only introduces an independent system boundary consisting of "at least one interface" and "at least one processing circuit". Because a subordinate element titled "processing system" is never introduced in Claim 1, it is unclear whether Claim 4 seeks to modify the processing system as a whole or an unrecited internal subcomponent, making the claim scope indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3,5-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101; and Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights