POWER SURVEY LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 19, 2020

2019003151 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/101,186 06/02/2016 David KALOKITIS PRS010 8493
54698 7590 05/19/2020
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
ZAKARIA, AKM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2020 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID KALOKITIS
____________________

Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
April 18, 2018 decision finally rejecting claims 1–15 (“Final Act.”). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Power Survey LLC as the real party
in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to an apparatus for detecting stray
voltage anomalies in electric fields using a photonic sensor (Spec. ¶ 1).
According to the Specification, large power distribution systems are subject
to many stresses, which may occasionally result in the generation of
undesirable or dangerous anomalies, such as the presence of "stray voltages"
in the system (Spec. ¶ 2). These stray voltages are said to present
themselves when objects such as manhole covers, gratings, street light poles,
phone booths and the like become electrically energized because an
electrically conductive path is established between underground secondary
network cabling and these objects through physical damage to electrical
insulation resulting in direct contact between electrically conductive
elements or through the introduction of water acting as a conductor (id.).
The Specification states that there is a need to provide an efficient means to
detect and identify sources of stray voltage anomalies over large geographic
areas covered by power distribution systems (Spec. ¶ 6). This need is said to
be met by the disclosed system, which includes a mobile apparatus mounted
on a motor vehicle comprising two or more sensors (Abstract).
Details of the claimed system are set forth in independent claims 1
and 11, which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief:
1. A mobile apparatus mounted to a motor vehicle for detecting
energized objects, comprising:
at least one sensor probe, mounted to the motor vehicle,
that detects an electric field generated by a stray voltage
anomaly within an area, and generates a first signal
corresponding to the electric field, wherein the at least one
sensor probe comprises at least one electrode;
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

3
at least one photonic sensor, mounted to the motor
vehicle, that detects the electric field and generates a second
signal corresponding to the electric field;
a processor, coupled to the at least one sensor probe and
the at least one photonic sensor, that (i) digitizes the first signal
to form digitized first electric field data, (ii) produces, from the
digitized first electric field data, first field strengths of each of
the at least one sensor probes, (iii) analyzes the first field
strengths to identify the area, (iv) digitizes the second signal to
form digitized second electric field data, (v) produces, from the
digitized second electric field data, second field strengths for
the at least one photonic sensor, and (vi) analyzes the second
field strengths to identify, within the area, a specific location of
the stray voltage anomaly, wherein the digitized first and
second electric field data is analyzed based on an expected
frequency pertaining to the stray voltage anomaly; and
an indicator, coupled to the processor, that alerts a user to
a presence of the stray voltage anomaly at the specific location.

11. A mobile apparatus mounted to a motor vehicle for
detecting energized objects, comprising:
two or more photonic sensors, mounted to the motor
vehicle, and coupled to a photo-receiver, wherein the photo-
receiver generates a signal corresponding to an electric field
detected by the two or more photonic sensors, for narrowing
down the location of a hazardously energized object;
a processor, coupled to the two or more photonic sensors,
that digitizes the signal to form electric field data, produces
field strengths of each of the two or more photonic sensors,
analyzes the field strengths to identify a specific location of the
hazardously energized object in the electric field, wherein the
electric field data is analyzed based on an expected frequency
pertaining to hazardous energy to locate an energized object
proximate a street; and
an indicator, coupled to the processor, that alerts a user to
a presence of the hazardously energized object in the electric
field.
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

4
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the grounds
that the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because
the invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
2. Claims 1 and 5–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Walters2 in view of Wiswell.3
3. Claims 2–4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Walters in view of Wiswell, and further in view of Wach.4

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 – 35 U.S.C. §101
Legal background. An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the
Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice guides
our analysis. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of

2 Walters et al., US 2009/0027281 A1, published January 29, 2009.
3 Wiswell et al., US 2007/0279067 A1, published December 6, 2007.
4 Wach, US 9,065,572 B1, issued June 23, 2015.
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

5
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and
chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v.
Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson,
409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a “claim seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

6
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, the analysis moves to the
second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO has published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to whether
the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP5 §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:

5 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

7
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.
Because the analysis is essentially similar for both independent claim
1 and independent claim 11, we address the claims together.
Guidance Step 1
There is no dispute that each of claims 1 and 11 fall within a statutory
category, as each recites an apparatus.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
Under Step 2A of the Guidance, we first consider whether the claims
recite a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a number of limitations which
involve mathematical calculations and analysis of information, in particular:
(1) the processor produces, from the digitized first electric field data, first
field strengths of each of the at least one sensor probes; (2) the processor
analyzes the first field strengths to identify the area where the voltage
anomaly is located; (3) the processor produces, from the digitized second
electric field data, second field strengths, and (4) the processor analyzes the
second field strengths to identify the specific location of the voltage
anomaly. Claim 11 recites similar limitations involving mathematical
concepts and analyses: (1) a processor producing field strengths of two or
more photonic sensors; (2) analysis of the field strengths to identify the
location of a hazardously energized object; and (3) analyzing electric field
data based on an expected frequency pertaining to hazardous energy to
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

8
locate an energized object proximate a street. Each of these limitations can
be thought of as either mathematical manipulation of data (i.e. mathematical
concepts), or data analysis (mental process), each of which fall within the
class of abstract ideas. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 594–95; In re BRCA1 &
BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, we determine that claims 1 and 11 each recite a
judicial exception because mathematical concepts and mental processes are
identified in the Guidance, and the case law, as abstract ideas, which are a
judicial exception.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having determined that claims 1 and 11 each recite a judicial
exception, our analysis under the Guidance turns to determining whether
there are additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical
application. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). “A claim is not ‘directed
to’ a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application.”
Guidance at 53. A claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception “in a
manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that
the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial
exception.” Id.
The additional elements in claim 1 include: (1) a motor vehicle, (2) a
sensor probe comprising an electrode mounted to the motor vehicle; (3) a
photonic sensor mounted to the motor vehicle; (4) a processor coupled to the
sensor probe and the photonic sensor; and (5) an indicator coupled to the
processor. Thus, claim 1 recites an apparatus for detecting energized
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

9
objects, which includes a number of specific, physical components. Claim
11 recites similar additional elements, except that it describes two or more
photonic sensors which are coupled to the processor and does not
specifically recite the sensor probe. According to the Specification, the
apparatuses of claims 1 and 11 recite a specific improvement in a practical
application, namely an apparatus for detecting and identifying sources of
stray voltage anomalies over large geographic areas (Spec. ¶¶ 3–6).
The non-abstract portions of the claims specify particular physical
components and their connectivity to each other. In this sense, the claims
are analogous to the claims in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In that case, the court held that the claimed
invention, which used conventional sensors and mathematical equations,
was patent eligible because the claims set forth a particular configuration of
the sensors and use of the data to achieve a useful, practical result.
Similarly, in this case, the use of the sensors in the claimed configuration is
said to permit detection of voltage anomalies over large geographic areas, in
a manner which is said to be faster and safer than previously known methods
(Spec. ¶¶ 4–6). Thus, the claim integrates the judicial exception into a
practical application because it uses the judicial exception “in a manner that
imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
Guidance at 53. In this case, the abstract ideas are used as part of an
apparatus with practical use in a real world application.
Thus, the claim includes additional elements that integrate the abstract
limitations into a practical application. Accordingly, we conclude that
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

10
claims 1 and 11, and the claims which depend from it, describe patent
eligible subject matter.

Rejections 2 and 3 – 35 U.S.C. §103
Appellant does not argue any of the prior art rejections separately
(see, Appeal Br. 9–13). Accordingly, we will focus our analysis on the
rejection of claim 1 over Walters in view of Wiswell. The remaining claims
will stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Walters discloses each element of claim 1
(Final Act. 11–12, citing Walters, Abstract, FIGS. 1A, 2B, 3), except that
Walters does not disclose that the components are attached to a motor
vehicle and that the apparatus is, therefore, mobile (Final Act. 13). The
Examiner further finds that Wiswell teaches a mobile apparatus mounted on
a motor vehicle (id., citing Wiswell, FIG. 1, ¶¶ 20, 39). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to mount the apparatus of
Walters on a motor vehicle as taught by Wiswell in order to report precise
fault locations while sensors mounted on vehicles may detect stray voltages
(Final Act. 13).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not adequately established a
reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
cited teachings of Walters and Wiswell (Appeal Br. 9–10). Appellant
contends that Walters discloses an apparatus for monitoring specific
equipment or structures, such as streetlights, manhole covers, fences, etc.
(Appeal Br. 10). Therefore, according to Appellant, there would have been
“no need to modify Walters in order to report precise fault locations since
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

11
Walters already monitors specific fixed structures at specific locations” and
“the precise location of any identified fault[] is already known” (id.).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive, essentially for the reasons set
forth by the Examiner (Ans. 9). In particular, both Walters and Wiswell
describe systems to detect stray voltage anomalies (Walters, Abstract;
Wiswell, Abstract). Walters’s system detects the anomaly at a specific,
stationary object, but without requiring the close presence of an operator
(Walters, ¶ 18), while Wiswell’s system detects stray voltages using a sensor
which may be mounted on a vehicle (Wiswell, ¶ 39). Because both systems
perform the anomaly detection remotely without manual probing, it would
have been obvious to use the Walters system on a vehicle as described by
Wiswell to allow the system to be used on more than one possible source of
a voltage anomaly. Wiswell specifically states that its system can allow
reporting of the precise locations of voltage anomalies to remove possible
operator error (Wiswell, ¶ 20).
As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 9) the combination of the
teachings of the references would have yielded a predictable result. It is
well established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well
as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom). In this instance a person of skill in the art
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

12
would have understood the advantage of combining the teachings of Walters
and Wiswell as set forth by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues that Walters fails to teach analyzing electric
field strengths to identify the location of a voltage anomaly (Appeal Br. 11–
12). This argument is persuasive. The Examiner finds that Walters teaches
“employing two sensors detecting electric fields of different strengths and
locations from the monitored stray voltage object, one geared to nearby or
specific location and other geared to far or general location” and that one
data from one sensor is used to “identify the area” while data from the
second sensor is used to “identify within the area . . . a specific location”
(Ans. 10, citing Walters, ¶¶ 23, 34 (emphasis omitted)). However, as
explained by Appellant (Reply Br. 6–7), while Walters does disclose having
sensors at different locations measuring different field strengths, Walters
does not teach or suggest the use of that information to first locate the
general location of the voltage anomaly and then pinpoint that location, as
set forth in claim 1.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, Appellant has demonstrated that the
Appeal 2019-003151
Application 15/101,186

13
Examiner has not adequately shown that the claim limitations “analyzes the
first field strengths to identify the area” and “analyzes the second field
strengths to identify, within the area, a specific location of the stray voltage
anomaly” are taught or suggested by the cited art. Accordingly, we reverse
the prior art rejections.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
References(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 101 Judicial Exception 1–15
1, 5–13 103 Walters, Wiswell 1, 5–13
2–4, 14, 15 103 Walters, Wiswell, Wach 2–4, 14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–15

REVERSED