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
This action is final.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 09/15/2025.
Claims 8-9, 12-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1, 10, 20 have been amended.
In view of the amendments, the 112(b) rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more. The amendments have not made the claim eligible. The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012 in further view of Pestourie, B., UWB Secure Ranging and Localization, PhD Thesis, 2020/12/04, (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349277333_UWB_Secure_Ranging_and_Localization)
Claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012, in further view of Soltan S. et al “S. Soltan, A. Loh, G. Zussman, “A learning-based method for generating synthetic power grids,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 625–634, Mar. 2019 and associated datasets and files at at https://wimnet.ee.columbia.edu/portfolio/synthetic-power-grids-data-sets/ and code in github https://github.com/invenia/SyntheticGrids.jl
Claim 7 (dependent on claim 6) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012, in further view of Soltan S. et al “S. Soltan, A. Loh, G. Zussman, “A learning-based method for generating synthetic power grids,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 625–634, Mar. 2019 and associated datasets and files at at https://wimnet.ee.columbia.edu/portfolio/synthetic-power-grids-data-sets/ and code in github https://github.com/invenia/SyntheticGrids.jl in further view of Rudnicki M. et al, Methods to Convert Local Sampling Coordinates into Geographic Information System/Global Positioning Systems (GIS/GPS)–Compatible Coordinate Systems, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 24, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 233–238, https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/24.3.233 https://academic.oup.com/njaf/article-abstract/24/3/233/4780006
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed on 09/15/2025 have been considered. Claims 1, 10, 20 have been amended. Claims 8-9, 12-19 have been canceled.
In view of the amendments, the 112(b) rejection of claim 20is withdrawn.
Re claims 1-7, 10-11, and 20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process, some of the claims also reciting mathematical concepts) without significantly more: the amendments in independent claim have not made the claim eligible, as some added limitations in the independent claim, specifically the estimating of branch values, and iteratively repeating the determining geolocation step, also recite mental processes. Other limitations recite data gathering and data manipulation/ outputting/storing, which are insignificant extra-solution activity; the other amendments are descriptive of the data gathering but are not able to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the claim element “by a processor”, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Thus, the arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, in view of the amendments and arguments the previous rejection of claims 1-7, 10-11, and 20 the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-11, and 20 under 35 USC 103 been withdrawn. A new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is established and made final because the amendments necessitated consideration of new prior art.
Regarding the argument regarding the 103 rejection, summarized at end of page 9, “This methodology for reconciling incomplete architecture and geographic information, estimating missing values, and iteratively propagating geolocations is not disclosed or suggested in the cited art.” - the argument has been considered but has not been found persuasive in view of art used as new ground of rejection. About reconciling incomplete information the art teaches that data may be incorrect and data can be missing (Dam) estimating the locations that are missing and iteratively propagating the determination of the location of the nodes (Gober). While referenced art (Dam) is not explicit about the missing ‘length’ it is explicit about missing ‘data’ in the context of data from GIS database and additional data database in a model of power network, which in the broader reasonable interpretation covers data related to length. As applicant correctly admits, the relationship between resistance and length is well known as a matter of physics and while the claim 1 is not directly merely to that relationship, the claim would be obvious in the combination of elements, since missing locations invariably leads a POSITA to network localization, specifically to multilateration, and if a distance is missing, the first solution to consider is to compute it from electric characteristics of the transmission line.
Also the reference (Gober) teaches about the iterative propagation in network localization, as new nodes once their location is determined, become references for the nearby nodes. The applicant argues that Gober iterative multilateration assumes distances to be directly measurable. The Examiner respectfully considers that the generic method taught by Gober, not invented by Gober- but simply exemplified, since the calculation of the point at the intersection of two circles of given radius is an old concept in geometry – indeed assumes the radius/distance known, but how it is known it is not intrinsic to the method, - regardless it is measured , or obtained by a calculation. nothing in the method, when calculating the intersection of two circles requires the radius of each circle to be ‘measured’. The incompleteness of data is taught in Dam, Horton refers to link between impedance/resistance and length, and Gober teaches the solving of the unknown locations and that this is a propagating phenomenon advancing in the neighborhood as new node locations become calculated. As for the argument “Dam presumes that the GIS dataset already includes geographic locations for all modeled assets.” asserted at end of page 13, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and points out paragraphs where Gober refers that databases have incomplete and missing data.
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 1-7, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-7, 10-11, and 20 are directed to a computer implemented method. Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 2A.1. The independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea, shown in bold in the following. Specifically, the claim is directed to
[A] a computer-implemented method for geographically locating a plurality of buses of a power system, wherein the buses are distributed over a geographic area, and each bus of the plurality is electrically connected through respective branches to one or more other buses of the plurality, the method comprising, by a processor executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium : (preamble, no active step)
[B] receiving, at the processor, for the plurality of buses, architecture information stored in memory that includes bus information including one or more of bus number, name, and voltage level, and branch information for branches interconnecting the plurality of buses, the branch information including, for each branch one or more of from-and-to bus numbers, branch impedance values, and branch length values, wherein, for at least some branches, the branch information omits branch values; (data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity)
[C] receiving, at the processor, geographic information that includes numbers or names and corresponding geolocations for a subset of the plurality of buses, such that fewer than all buses of the plurality are associated with geolocations; (data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity)
[D] matching, by the processor, buses from the plurality associated with the architecture information with the buses from the subset associated with the geographic information based on corresponding bus numbers or names; (mental process, can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, a person can do that by observation, evaluation, judgement )
[E] estimating, by the processor, branch length values for the branches where the branch information omits branch length values, the determining branch length values being based on corresponding bus-voltage values and branch impedance values; (mental process, can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, a person can do that by evaluation, judgement )
[F] determining, by the processor, geolocations for the unmatched buses of the plurality by calculating, for each unmatched bus, its respective geolocation based on branch length values of branches between the unmatched bus and two or more matched buses; (mental process, can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, a person can do that by observation, evaluation, judgement; also involves calculations )
[G ] iteratively repeating, by the processor, the determining geolocations step such that buses with calculated geolocation from prior iterations are used as matched buses for subsequent iterations; and (mental process, can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, a person can do that by observation, evaluation, judgement; also involves calculations )
[H] storing, in memory, the determined geolocations of the buses for use in analysis of the power system.(generic computer function, post-solution activity, insignificant extra-activity)
Regarding the claim element “by a processor”, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Independent claim 1 recite matching buses based on common indexes, thus obtaining geolocation for some [D]; estimating branch values from impedance [E] determine geolocation for the other ones by calculations involving branches to geolocated buses [F], repeating using calculated information, which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement regarding the matching of buses with same indexes and determining geolocation for buses mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). (Note that [E] also recites elements that can be interpreted indicative of a mathematical calculation (calculation using the length of branches) thus a Mathematic Concept (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A.2. it is determined that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements [A], [B], [D], when considered individually, fail to amount to more than the judicial exception itself. Specifically:
- Preamble [A], reciting intended application related to intended field of use
- Elements [B] and [C] receiving bus and branch information; which is data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
-Elements [H], data output, data manipulation, insignificant extra solution activity.
Taken individually or in combination, the additional elements [B],[C],[H] do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not contribute an inventive concept. That is, the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07).
The additional elements [B],[C], [H], when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception; and amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities of receiving data [B], [C] and data manipulation. The insignificant pre-solution activity that recites receiving data is similar to those that been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically - see MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i). It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), further recites: wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus comprises
[A] identifying an intersection area of three overlapping circles having as centers respective geolocations of three matched buses and as radii respective lengths of branches between the three matched buses and the unmatched bus.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, identifying the intersection area of overlapping circles with characteristics given by buses and branches (centers and radii) ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), further recites:
[A] wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus is performed using multilateration.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, calculating a location using multilateration ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, multilateration involves mathematical calculations using geometrical concepts, thus Mathematical Concepts.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), further recites:
[A] wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus comprises estimating a separation between at least two non-overlapping circles having as centers respective geolocations of at least two matched buses and as radii respective lengths of branches between the at least two matched buses and the unmatched bus.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, calculating a location by estimating a separation between circles ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, estimation of a separation between two circles involves mathematical calculations using geometrical concepts, thus Mathematical Concepts.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), further recites:
[A] wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus includes estimating the closest point to the at least two non-overlapping circles.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, estimating the closest point to the at least two non-overlapping circles [A] involves mathematical calculations using geometrical concepts, thus the limitation recites a Mathematical Concept. Furthermore it is expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually – using a pen and paper. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. Claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), further recites:
[A] wherein the geolocations of the buses including the received geographic information is expressed in latitude and longitude values, and
[B] calculating geolocations of unmatched buses comprises converting the latitude values to corresponding linearized values of distances from a reference parallel, and the longitude values to corresponding linearized values of distances from a reference meridian.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, converting latitude and longitude to a different system of reference [B] involves mathematical calculations using geometrical concepts, (see for example 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS, C. Mathematical Calculations iii. using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers, Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential); Thus, the limitation recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements ([A]) in this dependent claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses“. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 7 (dependent on claim 6), further recites:
[A] wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus includes converting the calculated geolocations from linearized values back to latitude and longitude values.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, converting from a different system of reference to latitude and longitude to a different system of reference [B] involves mathematical calculations using geometrical concepts, (see for example 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS, C. Mathematical Calculations iii. using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers, Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential); Thus, the limitation recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), further recites
[A] wherein the step of determining the estimated branch length values includes building, with the processor, a table of bus-voltage values and corresponding branch impedance values and calculating the length values using the table.(can be performed with pen and paper).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, building a table and calculating length values using a table ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the claim element “with the processor”, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), further recites
[A] wherein the buses comprise respective substations of the power system.
The additional elements [A] only provide further clarification on other elements (the buses), and do not recite a method step. Both when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements recited by the claim only further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims - the claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses“. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, when considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim elaborates on the identified abstract idea. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 20 (dependent on claim 1), further comprising
[A] for each bus for which a geolocation is calculated, comparing the calculated geolocation with a database of bus geolocations and associating with that bus the closest geolocation from the database of geolocation.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, comparing calculated geolocation with one from a table and associating it to the closest value in the table ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “geolocating electric power system buses (nodes) based on electrical parameters and distances between buses” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 20 is deemed ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims with similar limitations are grouped, and a single rejection analysis is performed, on a representative claim for the group.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012
Regarding claim 1, Dam teaches
a computer-implemented method for geographically locating a plurality of buses of a power system, wherein the buses are distributed over a geographic area, and each bus of the plurality is electrically connected through respective branches to one or more other buses of the plurality, the method comprising, by a processor executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium: {see at least Dam: [0015] Systems and methods are provided for validating a power network model by verifying that the model matches or otherwise corresponds to an electric power network providing electrical power to multiple assets positioned in a geographical area. ; [0023] In one example, the validation process can identify incorrectly entered data in systems such as the GIS data 108, such as power grid assets reported at an incorrect location, assets attributes (e.g. power and voltage ratings) incorrectly entered, etc.} geographically locating the buses is interpreted as validating the location of buses, even in conditions some assets are reported in the GIS database at incorrect location; [0036] Each of the memory devices 404, 414, 426 may include one or more non-transitory computer-readable media such as (but not limited to) an electronic, optical, magnetic, or other storage device capable of providing a processor with computer-readable instructions.}
receiving, at the processor, for the plurality of buses, architecture information stored in memory that includes bus information including one or more of bus number, name, and voltage level, and branch information for branches interconnecting the plurality of buses, the branch information including, for each branch one or more of from-and-to bus numbers, branch impedance values, and branch length values, wherein, for at least some branches, the branch information omits branch values; receiving, at the processor, geographic information that includes numbers or names and corresponding geolocations for a subset of the plurality of buses, such that fewer than all buses of the plurality are associated with geolocations; {see at least Dam: [0015] Systems and methods are provided for validating a power network model by verifying that the model matches or otherwise corresponds to an electric power network providing electrical power to multiple assets positioned in a geographical area. [0020] The validation server 102 can access one or more data sources via a data network 106. Examples of data sources include databases or other data structures from which GIS data 108 and additional data 110 can be retrieved. In some embodiments, the GIS data 108, the additional data 110, or both include connectivity data (e.g., nodes and edges of a power network). The validation application 104 can validate, generate, modify, or otherwise use power network models based on one or more of the GIS data 108 and the additional data 110. [0031] The validation server 102 (or other suitable computing system executing the validation application 104), the computing device 112, and the control system 113 can respectively include processors 402, 412, 424. ; [0070] incorrect node and winding voltage and power ratings, phase mismatches, missing model data, invalid connectivity loops, and switch states that cause connectivity issues. The validation application 104 can compute the asset score 206 based on some or all of these attribute; [0004] Various types of data can be used to generate power network models. Examples of this data include geographic information system (“GIS”) layout data, connectivity data, and device information data…the data used to generate power network models is prone to errors, inconsistencies, and incompleteness.} In broadest reasonable interpretation receiving architecture information and geographic information interpreted as accessing data one or more data sources, databases and other data structures from which GIS and additional data can be retrieved. Omitted branch values and fewer than all buses is interpreted as missing model data.
PNG
media_image1.png
225
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fragment from Fig. 2 sowing data sources.
matching, by the processor, buses from the plurality associated with the architecture information with the buses from the subset associated with the geographic information based on corresponding bus numbers or names; {Dam: [0060] In the data graph, each edge between graph nodes represents a connection (a line, switch, etc.) between two modeled nodes from the power network model 202. The nodes and connections can be identified from the GIS data 108 or additional data 110.; [0027]…generate a data graph of the power network model 202, where each node is a point of the electric power network and each edge is a connection (a line, switch, etc.) between two nodes. The nodes and connections can be identified in the GIS data 108 or additional data 110; The nodes and connections can be identified from the GIS data 108 or additional data 110.} In BRI, matching, by the processor, buses from architecture information with busses from geographic information is interpreted as busses is interpreted as a step of generating data graph of the power network model from the GIS data and additional data , bus interpreted as node; while matching by number or name is not explicit it is implicit since it would have been the most natural and obvious choice to use as index in any database regarding the network elements.
storing, in memory, the determined geolocations of the buses for use in analysis of the power system.{ Dam: [0025] The validation application 104 can generate or modify a database or other file that stores records and data values corresponding to the power network model 202; [0060] The processing device 402 can store the graph data structure in a suitable non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as the memory 404.
The following limitations, in broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a method for determining the location of a node based on the length of edges connecting the nodes. The method for such location of nodes is known to those skilled in the art under the name of network localization. It is a widely applied method, long known in geometry (also referred to in the specification [0011] “(e.g. bilateration, trilateration, etc)”.
Dam does not teach, however Gober teaches
determining, by the processor, geolocations for the unmatched buses of the plurality by calculating, for each unmatched bus, its respective geolocation based on branch length values of branches between the unmatched bus and two or more matched buses; {see at least Gober: [p9] Figure 3; 3.3.1.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
382
707
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“determining, by the processor, geolocations for the unmatched buses of the plurality by calculating, for each unmatched bus, its respective geolocation based on branch length values of branches between the unmatched bus and two or more matched buses Is interpreted as computing a position from a set of known references and distances to them. lengths of branches as distances, matched busses with nodes.
iteratively repeating, by the processor, the determining geolocations step such that buses with calculated geolocation from prior iterations are used as matched buses for subsequent iterations; and { Gober [p10, 3.3.2 Iterative Multilateration]: In iterative multilateration [44, 61, 62] during each iteration, all nodes that have a minimum number of reference nodes available (usually 3), estimate their positions. In the next iteration they become references, too. In this way, ultimately, position information can be propagated through the sensor network.} this also makes implicit the values that become references are memorized (stored in memory)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Dam and Gober. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of obtaining the position of nodes where such information was missing or incorrect. Dam is teaching the validation of power data networks with incomplete or erroneous information including for nodes/buses. To calculate, for validation or completion one would have been obvious to use the well known multilateration algorithm, here taught by Gober and to use the determined new position as known information to propagate calculation repeating the procedure (iteratively). Combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Dam and Gober Dam would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam in view of Gober.
Dam/Gober does not teach, however Horton teaches
estimating, by the processor, branch length values for the branches where the branch information omits branch length values, the determining branch length values being based on corresponding bus-voltage values and branch impedance values; {see at least page 2370, Table II Transmission Line Information) } Table shown below. While Resistance is only one of the two components of impedance, both are linearly depending on length, thus either can be used. Thus impedance is interpreted as resistance.
PNG
media_image4.png
290
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Dam/Gober with Horton’s. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of obtaining the needed distance/radius/length in situations when it is not known but impedance, or any of its components, resistance or reactance, are known, since these are proportional to the length. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Dam/Gober evidently discloses methods to perform localization of nodes from exact location of two or more nodes and distances to those nodes. Horton is merely relied upon to illustrate the process of obtaining length in cases when impedance / resistance is known. As best understood by Examiner, since solving the localization of proximal nodes (or broadly speaking proximal assets) using length/distance and calculating distance based on known impedance/resistance are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Dam/Gober and Horton would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober in further view of Horton.
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1) Dam/Gober/Horton teach the limitations of claim 1. Gober further discloses:
wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus comprises identifying an intersection area of three overlapping circles having as centers respective geolocations of three matched buses and as radii respective lengths of branches between the three matched buses and the unmatched bus. {see at least Gober: [p9] Figure 3; also section 3.3.1.} see figures below.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
382
707
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Dam/Gober/Horton with further elements of Gober. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of using the simple method of trilateration.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton.
Regarding claim 3 Dam/Gober/Horton teach the limitations of claim 1. Gober further discloses:
wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus is performed using multilateration. {see at least Gober: [p9] Figure 3; also section 3.3.1.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
382
707
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Dam/Gober/Horton with further elements of Gober. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of using the simple method of multilateration. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 1) Dam/Gober/Horton teach the limitations of claim 1. Dam further discloses
wherein the buses comprise respective substations of the power system. { see at least Dam: [0005] Aspects and examples are disclosed for validating a power network model by verifying that the model matches or otherwise corresponds to an electric power network providing electrical power to multiple assets positioned in a geographical area. [0086] For instance, the validation application 104 can partition a power network model into sub-models based on substations included within the power network modeled electric power network.}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 1) Dam/Gober/Horton teach the limitations of claim 1. Dam further discloses:
for each bus for which a geolocation is calculated, comparing the calculated geolocation with a database of bus geolocations and associating with that bus the closest geolocation from the database of geolocation. {see at least Abstract -This disclosure involves verifying that a power network model corresponds to an electric power network providing electrical power in a geographical area. For instance, a validation device computes a validation score for a power network model based on a connectivity score, an asset score, and a power-flow score. SUMMARY [0005] Aspects and examples are disclosed for validating a power network model by verifying that the model matches or otherwise corresponds to an electric power network providing electrical power to multiple assets positioned in a geographical area. [0020] The validation server 102 can access one or more data sources via a data network 106. Examples of data sources include databases or other data structures from which GIS data 108 and additional data 110 can be retrieved. In some embodiments, the GIS data 108, the additional data 110, or both include connectivity data (e.g., nodes and edges of a power network). Based on this identification, the control system 113 can modify one or more configuration parameters of the electric power network 116.} Comparing interpreted as verifying a match. Buses interpreted as nodes. Associating with the closest geolocation interpreted as modifying one or more configuration parameters of the power network.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton.
Regarding claim 10 (depending on claim 1) Dam/Gober/Horton teach the limitations of claim 1. Horton further discloses
wherein the step of determining the estimated branch length values includes building, with the processor, a table of bus-voltage values and corresponding branch impedance values and calculating the length values using the table. {see at least Horton: page 2370, Table II Transmission Line Information) Table shown below. While Resistance is only one of the two components of impedance, both are linearly depending on length, thus either can be used. Thus impedance is interpreted as resistance.
PNG
media_image4.png
290
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Dam/Gober/Horton with further elements of Horton’s. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of obtaining the needed length in situations when impedance, or any of its components, resistance or reactance, are known, since these are proportional to the length, conveniently so if all these are in the same table.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton in further view of Horton.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012 in further view of Pestourie, B., UWB Secure Ranging and Localization, PhD Thesis, 2020/12/04, (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349277333_UWB_Secure_Ranging_and_Localization)
Regarding Claim 4 Dam/Gober/Horton teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not disclose, however, Pastourie discloses:
wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus comprises estimating a separation between at least two non-overlapping circles having as centers respective geolocations of at least two matched buses and as radii respective lengths of branches between the at least two matched buses and the unmatched bus. {see at least pages 21-22, Fig. 3; This problem can be represented by the area of intersection or disjunction of circles, as shown in Fig. 3. In this example, three anchors A1, A2, and A3 estimate their respective distances R1, R2, and R3 to a mobile tag. The ideal geometrical case is shown on the left: the distances estimated are completely accurate and there is a single solution, which is the intersection of the circles of radius R1, R2, and R3. . If the anchors are overestimating the distance, as shown in Fig. 3. (middle), the intersection of the ranging circles forms a surface and not a single point. In the opposite case (right), if the distances are underestimated, the ranging circles are disjointed. The area of the tag’s potential position is circled in red. The surface of junction or disjunction will depend on the bias distribution. Considering this issue, the multilateration problem is less trivial than a simple geometrical resolution; Page 23: II.1.4.2 Multilateration algorithms. Geometrical: geometrical approaches are simply based on the trilateration process illustrated in Fig. 2, where a set of 2 solutions can be obtained for each peer of anchors. In an ideal situation where the measurements are absolutely unbiased, a third anchor is enough to find out which of the two solutions is correct, and the distance information brought by any additional anchors will be completely redundant. In other words, if multiple anchors are available and there is no ranging bias, any triplet of anchors will give the same trilateration result. However, this does not hold true anymore if noise is introduced: the solutions obtained for each couple or triplet of anchors will slightly differ. When multiple anchors are available, there are two main ways to exploit the redundancy: either by using a selection process or by applying a centroid. In the first case, the closest anchors to the target, i.e., the ones that are the most likely to be accurate, are chosen and the other ones are ignored. This approach is used for example in the BAST algorithm [51]. In the second case, all the possible trilateration are computed and the final solution is computed as the centroid of all the trilateration solutions.}
PNG
media_image5.png
232
664
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Above shown is Fig. 3 from Pestourie, page 22, illustrating multilateration with three known anchors (nodes) – which become the centers, of radius equal to the distance between an anchor node and node with location to be determined. The limitations of Claim 4 related to figure on the right, where circles do not overlap.
Regarding Claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), Dam/Gober/Horton/Pastourie teach the limitations of claim 4. Pastourie further discloses:
wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus includes estimating the closest point to the at least two non-overlapping circles. {see at least pages 21-22, Fig. 3; This problem can be represented by the area of intersection or disjunction of circles, as shown in Fig. 3. In this example, three anchors A1, A2, and A3 estimate their respective distances R1, R2, and R3 to a mobile tag. The ideal geometrical case is shown on the left: the distances estimated are completely accurate and there is a single solution, which is the intersection of the circles of radius R1, R2, and R3. . If the anchors are overestimating the distance, as shown in Fig. 3. (middle), the intersection of the ranging circles forms a surface and not a single point. In the opposite case (right), if the distances are underestimated, the ranging circles are disjointed. The area of the tag’s potential position is circled in red. The surface of junction or disjunction will depend on the bias distribution. Considering this issue, the multilateration problem is less trivial than a simple geometrical resolution; Page 23: II.1.4.2 Multilateration algorithms. Geometrical: geometrical approaches are simply based on the trilateration process illustrated in Fig. 2, where a set of 2 solutions can be obtained for each peer of anchors. In an ideal situation where the measurements are absolutely unbiased, a third anchor is enough to find out which of the two solutions is correct, and the distance information brought by any additional anchors will be completely redundant. In other words, if multiple anchors are available and there is no ranging bias, any triplet of anchors will give the same trilateration result. However, this does not hold true anymore if noise is introduced: the solutions obtained for each couple or triplet of anchors will slightly differ. When multiple anchors are available, there are two main ways to exploit the redundancy: either by using a selection process or by applying a centroid.} Estimating the closest point to the two circles is interpreted to be the centroid.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Dam/Gober/Horton to include the teaching of Pastourie. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of choosing a confirmed (validated, known) location around the calculated location of a node, since position via calculations may be subject to errors, especially evident when circles of radius equal to branch length do not overall or have an area of overlap as opposed to a single point of intersection. Dam/Gober/Horton already teach multilateration; Pastourie merely further teaches an aspect related to an error in determination.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton in further view of Pastourie.
Claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012, in further view of Soltan S. et al “S. Soltan, A. Loh, G. Zussman, “A learning-based method for generating synthetic power grids,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 625–634, Mar. 2019 and associated datasets and files at at https://wimnet.ee.columbia.edu/portfolio/synthetic-power-grids-data-sets/ and code in github https://github.com/invenia/SyntheticGrids.jl
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) Dam/Gober/Horton disclose the limitations of claim 1. They do not disclose, however Soltan discloses:
wherein the geolocations of the buses including the received geographic information is expressed in latitude and longitude values, and calculating geolocations of unmatched buses comprises converting the latitude values to corresponding linearized values of distances from a reference parallel, and the longitude values to corresponding linearized values of distances from a reference meridian. { Abstract—Analysis and improvement of power grids resilience and efficiency requires the topologies and geographical coordinates of the real transmission networks. However, due to security reasons, such topologies and particularly the locations of the substations and lines are usually not publicly available. In this work, we thoroughly study the structural properties of the U.S. Western Interconnection grid (WI) and based on the results present the Network Imitating Method Based on LEarning (NIMBLE) for generating synthetic spatially embedded networks with similar properties to a given grid; Page 3 first paragraph {We obtained the topological network of the WI from the Platts GIS [20] and conducted longitude-latitude to planar (x; y) coordinate transformation, using the great circle distance method. We extracted the coordinates of the buses/substations from the endpoint coordinates of the lines. We then used the geographical coordinates of the substations and the lines to construct the graph with nodes and edges that represent substations and lines, respectively. In Data Files: :The data is organized as follows: Gen_WI_Bus_Locations.csv provides the geographical location of each bus in the generated network. Each row of the corresponding table contains of three fields: the bus number (labeled as Bus Number), the longitude of the bus in degrees (labeled as Lon), and the latitude of the bus in degrees (labeled as Lat).}
The great circle distance method as a method to convert longitude-latitude coordinates has been known to those skilled in the art, see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance and McCaw, G. T. (1932). "Long lines on the Earth". Empire Survey Review. 1 (6): 259–263. doi:10.1179/sre.1932.1.6.259. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Dam/Gober/Horton to include the further teaching of Soltan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain distances between nodes as these are needed in order to perform multilateration and computer position of new nodes. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Dam/Gober/Horton and Soltan would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton, in in further view of Soltan.
Claims 7 (dependent on claim 6) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dam, Q. B- US 20170373535 A1 in view of Gober P et al Topology control and localization in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, DSVL Detecting Selfish Node In Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANET) by Learning Automata 1(4) 2005 in further view of Horton et al A Test Case for the Calculation of Geomagnetically Induced Currents, IEEE Trans on Power Delivery, vol 27, no 4, Oct 2012, in further view of Soltan S. et al “S. Soltan, A. Loh, G. Zussman, “A learning-based method for generating synthetic power grids,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 625–634, Mar. 2019 and associated datasets and files at at https://wimnet.ee.columbia.edu/portfolio/synthetic-power-grids-data-sets/ and code in github https://github.com/invenia/SyntheticGrids.jl in further view of Rudnicki M. et al, Methods to Convert Local Sampling Coordinates into Geographic Information System/Global Positioning Systems (GIS/GPS)–Compatible Coordinate Systems, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 24, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 233–238, https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/24.3.233 https://academic.oup.com/njaf/article-abstract/24/3/233/4780006
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 6) Dam/Gober/Horton/Soltan disclose the limitations of claim 6. They do not disclose, however Rudnicki discloses:
wherein calculating the geolocation of the unmatched bus includes converting the calculated geolocations from linearized values back to latitude and longitude values. { [Abstract] Laying out a sampling transect in the field is a common task when researching natural systems and resources. With widespread availability of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), such as the US global positioning system (GPS), it is becoming more common to resurvey legacy transects to establish them in globally referenced coordinate systems such as geodetic latitude/longitude or planimetric systems such as the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) or the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS). Transforming local coordinates into a globally referenced coordinate system allows (1) disparate legacy surveys to be combined into a common geographic information system (GIS) database, (2) new GPS measurements to be incorporated into that same database, and (3) GPS-based navigation to be used for plot establishment and resampling. This article presents the mathematics necessary to determine the globally referenced planimetric coordinates of established linear, rectangular, or nominally rectangular transects (such as a rhombus) using formulas that are easily implemented on a spreadsheet. In addition, methods are given to determine the planimetric coordinates of new transects.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination of Dam/Gober/Horton/Soltan to include the further teaching of Rudnicki. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have the advantage of using the same standard of reference of longitude and latitude used for other elements of the power network, for example to be located in a table where such info is provided.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Dam/Gober/Horton/Soltan in further view of Rudnicki.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al CN 101944204 B
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188