Ex Parte HENCKEN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14450016 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/450,016
129925
ABB Inc.
7590
FILING DATE
08/01/2014
02/04/2019
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square
Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kai HENCKEN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ABBCH-00004 3063
EXAMINER
RIVERA VARGAS,MANUELA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
taft-ip-docket@taftlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAI HENCKEN, DANIEL SCHRAG, PETER
KRIPPNER, CARLO GEMME, MARCO EGMAN, and
JARKKO MAKELA
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 seek our review of the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify ABB Research Ltd. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal "relates to the field of power systems,
such as installations for controlling and protecting the distribution of electric
power," where a plurality of primary devices in a power system (e.g., circuit
breakers, power transformers, distribution transformers) are monitored.
Spec. ,r,r 2-3. In the claimed method (independent claim 1 ), operational
diagnostic data ( e.g., regarding the degree of mechanical wear on electrical
contacts) from a first primary device is collected, and health indicator data
( e.g., potential malfunction or failure) is determined for the first primary
device. Id. i-fi-f l 7, 20; App. Br. 14. The operational diagnostic data and the
health indicator data is linked and "diagnostic correlation data" is identified,
after which a diagnostic rule ( e.g., "a comparison with a threshold value") is
adapted for purposes of "generating a diagnostic warning indicative of a
health state of the primary device." Spec. ,r 22; App. Br. 14. The adapted
diagnostic rule - based on the data from the first primary device - is then
communicated to a second diagnostic device, and is applied therein to
generate a diagnostic warning of a second primary device based on
operational diagnostic data collected from the second primary device. App.
Br. 14.
Sharing an adapted diagnostic rule in this manner purportedly enables
the second diagnostic device "to modify (e.g., improve) [its] diagnostic
capabilities based on the experience made on a multitude of other primary
devices." Spec. ,r 80.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
copied below with key limitations italicized for emphasis:
2
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
1. A method for monitoring primary devices of a
power system via diagnostic devices, the method comprising:
in afirst diagnostic device:
collecting operational diagnostic data from a first primary
device, and determining health indicator data for the first primary
device from readings of a sensor, or from a result of a remote
query, or from manual inspection, or from regular services
peiformed by a human on the first primary device;
identifying diagnostic correlation data from the health
indicator data and from correlated operational diagnostic data of
the first primary device, which correlated operational diagnostic
data is linked with the health indicator data;
adapting a diagnostic rule to the identified diagnostic
correlation data, wherein an original diagnostic rule is modified
by calculating a change in a diagnostic identifier associated with
operational data of the first primary device and is applicable to
operational diagnostic data for generating a diagnostic warning
indicative of a health state of the primary device;
communicating the adapted diagnostic rule to a second
diagnostic device; and
in the second diagnostic device:
generating a diagnostic warning of a second primary
device by applying the adapted diagnostic rule of the first
diagnostic device to operational diagnostic data collected from
the second primary device.
App. Br. 14 (emphases added).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible
subject matter; and
II. Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Kalgren
(US 2008/0141072 Al, published June 12, 2008).
3
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
Rejection I
OPINION
We review the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20
under the recently published revised guidance governing the application of
35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that
guidance, we first look to determine whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human interactions, or mental processes); and, if so,
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Applying the guidance to the claims at issue here, we determine that
each independent claim 1 and 13 recites the abstract idea of performing a
mental process, as well as the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Specifically, claim 1 recites that determination of "health indicator
data for the first primary device" may be made "from manual inspection, or
from regular services performed by a human on the first primary device."
App. Br. 14. The Specification informs that such "health indicator data"
includes whether the device has completely failed, malfunctioned, or has
reduced availability. Spec. ,r 20. A manual inspection can reveal the
"severity of any kind of error" occurring in the first primary device. Id.
Thus, the "health indicator data for the first primary device" recited in claim
1 may be based on human observation of the first primary device and a
subsequent judgment regarding the "health" of the primary device. Id.
4
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
Further, in the recited "adapting a diagnostic rule" step, "an original
diagnostic rule is modified by calculating a change in a diagnostic
identifier[2J associated with operational data of the first primary device."
This change may be accomplished by means of a statistical evaluation.
Spec. ,r 75; see also id. f 76 (explaining that "different statistical or model
based algorithms may be used to analyse the individual primary devices 16a,
16b, to detect the change in the diagnostic identifier 35 and to find
improvements of the diagnostic rules 28 used to assess the quality of the
primary devices 16a, 16b"); ,r 73 ("[t]he change of the diagnostic indicator
35 may then be identified by comparing diagnostic indicators 35 of different
data sets."). Thus, claim 1 recites the mathematical concept of performing a
statistical analysis or a comparison of data regarding diagnostic indicators.
Independent claim 13 contains similar limitations as those recited in
claim 1 - i.e., "receiving health indicator data determined from ... manual
inspection, or from regular services performed by a human on the first
primary device," and "adapting a diagnostic rule" which involves
"calculating a change in a diagnostic identifier associated with the
operational data of the first primary device." App. Br. 17. Thus, like claim
1, claim 13 recites the abstract idea of performing a mental process, as well
as the abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Because the independent claims recite multiple abstract ideas, we now
tum to whether the claims integrate those abstract ideas into a practical
application, and are, thus, patent eligible.
2 The "diagnostic identifier" 35 is also referred to as "diagnostic indicator
35." Spec. ,r,r 48, 72, 73, 75, 76.
5
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
Upon review of the Specification, as well as Appellants' arguments
set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we determine that the claims are
directed to improving the diagnostic capabilities of primary devices in the
technical field of power distribution, and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Here, the Specification informs us that, in a power substation, primary
devices such as "circuit breakers vary in type, age and brand and may even
include different parts." Spec. ,r 3. There is a need for "[p ]ower substation
equipment [] to be very reliable and show a high availability," particularly
when power needs to be interrupted and reconnected. Id. ,r 4. To ensure that
the primary devices are in good working order, they "can be checked
regularly by a service technician." Id. Between service technician visits,
components inevitably degrade and may fail, which may not be discovered
until the next service visit, potentially resulting in delayed repairs. Id. ,r 5.
Such service technician visits are also expensive and time consuming
because power substations can be remotely located. Id. Alternatives to this
approach include using "non-intelligent data loggers" or "locally operating
diagnostic devices" that employ fixed limits or parameters that may signal
an alarm if violated. Id. ,r,r 6-7.
The claimed method ( claim 1) and program ( claim 13) "purport to
improve the functioning of ... the technical field" of diagnostics in power
systems. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208,225
(2014); see Spec. ,r,r 73-80 (explaining how modifying or adapting a
diagnostic rule via statistical analysis, based on the data associated with one
or more primary devices, and then communicating the adapted diagnostic
rule to another diagnostic device may improve the diagnostic capabilities of
6
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
the diagnostic device to which the adapted rule is communicated). Namely,
the Specification indicates that "[ t ]he improvements to diagnostic rules ...
may enable the local diagnostic device to modify (e.g., improve) [its]
diagnostic capabilities based on the experience made on a multitude of other
primary devices." Id. ,r 80. Indeed, the Specification instructs that "[t]he
diagnostic device 20 that received the adapted diagnostic rule 28 may then
provide an improved diagnostic warning 21 of a further primary device ...
by applying the adapted diagnostic rule 28 to operational diagnostic data []
collected for the further primary device." Id. ,r 82. In view of such
purported improvements, we determine there is a practical application of the
abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 13. It follows, then, that these claims,
and the claims dependent therefrom, are patent eligible.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection II
The Examiner's findings relevant to the rejection of claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kalgren appear at pages 4 and 5 of the Final
Office Action dated February 25, 2016.
Relevant to this appeal, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation because Kalgren does not
disclose first and second diagnostic devices and first and second primary
devices as recited in independent claims 1 and 13. App. Br. 11.
Specifically, Appellants argue that "a single device is utilized to perform all
the acts of Kalgren's method." Id. As such, Appellants argue, Kalgren does
not disclose the claimed acts of adapting a diagnostic rule based
on data from a first diagnostic device monitoring a first primary
7
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
device, communicating the adapted diagnostic rule to a second
diagnostic device, and, in the second diagnostic device,
generating a diagnostic warning of a second primary device by
applying the adapted diagnostic rule of the first diagnostic device
to operational diagnostic data collected from the second primary
device.
Id. at 12.
Appellants further take issue with the Examiner's citation to dual GPS
receivers as satisfying the claimed requirement of two diagnostic devices.
Id.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error. The
findings cited in support of anticipation do not evince the recited limitations.
For example, the Examiner maps method steps S 1500 and S 1600 (Fig. 1) to
the separate diagnostic devices, but fails to explain how these method steps
encompass the recited first and second diagnostic devices. Final Act. 4; see
also Kalgren ,r 81 ("In the training of diagnostic models step S 1500, the
diagnostic models ... " ( emphasis added)); id. ,r 82 ("Diagnostic features are
extracted (step S1600) from monitored values ... " (emphasis added)).
Further, the Examiner's position that the first and second diagnostic
devices and the first and second primary devices are not separate devices
(Ans. 4) is unavailing. The Examiner fails to cite to any evidence in the
Specification to support a claim construction that the recited "devices" may
be a single device. On the other hand, the independent claims identify the
devices as "first" and "second" devices, and our reading of the Specification
supports a construction that they are indeed separate. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 3,
15, 16, 18,37-39, 78.
8
Appeal2017-008245
Application 14/450,016
Furthermore, in the underlying rejection (Final Act. 4--5), the
Examiner provides no explanation how Kalgren's disclosure at paragraphs
79, 91, 100, 187, and 211 evinces the communication of the diagnostic rule
adapted in a first primary device to a second diagnostic device and then
application of that diagnostic rule to the second primary device based on the
operational data of that second primary device.
Under these circumstances, we do not sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kalgren.
DECISION/ORDER
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
9