DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 and similarly claim 21 recites “determining a total supportable load by the power source” and “configuring between open and closed the switching devices of the plurality of switching devices such that total feeder load is below the total supportable load based upon the determined section loads” however the applicant has not cited where in the specification support said amendments exists. Upon examiners review, the language “total supportable load” does not exist. While it is possible applicant is referring to Par. 67 notably “More particularly, if the maximum power that the source 12 can provide is Psource, the maximum load allowed on the section 38 is Lmax, and the load 24 on the section 38 computed using the method above” however, this does not support the claims as Psource is not determined, Padditional is. Further, it is not clear where support for “configuring between open and closed the switching devices of the plurality of switching devices such that total feeder load is below the total supportable load based upon the determined section loads” as while the specification describes opening and closing switches for fault detection, it does not recite doing so such that total feeder load is below the total supportable load based upon the determined section loads. While reference is made to a threshold in Par. 77, this is a voltage threshold not the total supportable load. While Par. 61 recites “The purpose for computing updated loading information is to enable automatic restoration from faults, or automatic reconfiguring of the electric network for optimal load balancing. Specifically, to decide what extra network sections each alternative source can power, the power being consumed in each section must be known” this does not support the cited claim language.
Claims 2-15 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining a second downstream section load” and “sending a second downstream section load”, it is unclear if these are referring to the same or different values, as the previously, first section determined a first downstream section load and then sent a first total downstream load. Thus, it is unclear if they are the same value and the claim should recite sending “the” second downstream load, or two different values are named the same.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 12 recites the limitation "the section load". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4, 7-11 13-15 and 21 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The previous 101 rejection is withdrawn based on the amended claims however depending on how the above 112(a) rejection is resolved it could return.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fernandes (US 20080077336 A1) hence forth Fern.
In claim 1, Fern discloses a method for connecting loads (Par. 199) throughout a power distribution network (Par. 67 “power grid network”), the network including at least one power source (abstract, “substation”), a primary feeder (Par. 55, Fig. 18), a plurality of switching devices positioned along the primary feeder (Figs. 19 and 20, 274, 285, 277 ect) and a plurality of sections between the switching devices (See Fig. 20), wherein the load on a section is the sum of the power flowing into the section from all of the switching devices around the section (See Fig. 20), and wherein the plurality of switching devices are in communication with each other (Fig. 18, Par. 55), the method comprising:
determining a first downstream section load (Fig. 20 Examiner considers the sections between the plums to be said sections, the “first” section could be considered as an example between 280, 274, and 275, Par. 68, 71, 131-133, 187-188, 201 237, “power factor, real power, reactive power, apparent power” 36 “Interrogates downstream and upstream PLUM's to establish faulted feeder segment” “If a fault occurs between switches 283 and 285 the fault would be detected by PLUMs 283 and 288. Switch 285 would be opened isolating the faulted section”) by a first switching device (Fig. 20, 288+286 Fig. 21, 310+313 claim 3) provided on the feeder downstream from the power source (See Fig. 20) using current and/or voltage measurements (Par. 22);
sending a first total downstream load (Fig. 11 and 12 Par. 131-132, 135 Par. 83, 92, 194-195 199, “PLUM 250 can also communicate with other PLUM sensor modules 251, 252, 253”, “RF repeater mode”) to a second switching device (Fig. 20 283+285 claim 3) provided on the feeder downstream from the first switching device (See Fig. 20);
determining a second downstream section load by the second switching device provided on a second feeder section downstream from the first switching device using current and/or voltage measurements (Fig. 20 Examiner considers the sections between the plums to be said sections, the “second” section could be considered as an example between 280 and 279, Par. 68, 71, 131-133, 187-188, 201, 237, “power factor, real power, reactive power, apparent power” 36 “Interrogates downstream and upstream PLUM's to establish faulted feeder segment”, “If a fault occurs between switches 283 and 285 the fault would be detected by PLUMs 283 and 288. Switch 285 would be opened isolating the faulted section”);
sending a second downstream section load (Fig. 11 and 12 Par. 131-132, 135 Par. 83, 92, 194-195 199, “PLUM 250 can also communicate with other PLUM sensor modules 251, 252, 253”, “RF repeater mode”, “In this mode the PLUM at 250 serves to collect data from other PLUMs serving as repeaters”) to a next switching device (Fig. 20 278+276 claim 3) provided on the feeder downstream of the second switching device (See Fig. 20);
determining a next downstream section load by the next switching device provided on a next feeder section downstream from the second switching device using current and/or voltage measurements (Fig. 20 Examiner considers the sections between the plums to be said sections, Par. 68, 71, 131-133, 187-188, 201, 237, “power factor, real power, reactive power, apparent power” 36 “Interrogates downstream and upstream PLUM's to establish faulted feeder segment”, “If a fault occurs between switches 283 and 285 the fault would be detected by PLUMs 283 and 288. Switch 285 would be opened isolating the faulted section”);
and sending downstream loads to the switching devices provided along the feeder downstream of the next switching device in this manner to a last switching device on the feeder (Fig. 19, 20 Par. 199 “In this mode the PLUM at 250 serves to collect data from other PLUMs serving as repeaters”); and
determining a total supportable load by the power source (Par. 201 “facilitate maximum tie-transfer capacity without violating system stability constraints”);
configuring between open and closed the switching devices of the plurality of switching devices such that total feeder load is below the total supportable load based upon the determined section loads (Par. 201 “facilitate maximum tie-transfer capacity without violating system stability constraints”, “If a fault occurs between switches 283 and 285 the fault would be detected by PLUMs 283 and 288. Switch 285 would be opened isolating the faulted section”).
In claim 2, Fern discloses knowing that a fault has occurred in the network if calculating the section load in a section gives an incorrect load calculation for the sections (See claim 15).
In claim 3, Fern discloses wherein each switching device includes a memory (Fig. 13, 148 149 150 Par. 165 184) for an upstream side and a memory for a downstream side of the switching device (Fig. 13, 148 149 150 Par. 165 184), the memories storing a plurality of the section loads taken at previous sample times (Par. 132).
In claim 4, Fern discloses all of claim 3. Fern further discloses wherein an oldest section load is discarded when a new section load is received (Par. 188, “7 day average”).
In claim 7, Fern discloses all of claim 3. Fern further discloses suspending determination of a section load in a switching device if any of the switching devices reports a loss of voltage (Par. 188, 201).
In claim 8, Fern discloses all of claim 7. Fern further discloses wherein determining a section load includes using previously stored measurements before the loss of voltage (claim 6, “storing the sampled value over selectable intervals of time”).
In claim 9, Fern discloses all of claim 7. Fern further discloses wherein determining a section load includes using previously stored measurements if (examiner notes that Per MPEP 2111.04 “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”) a short-term data dissemination loss occurs in the network (Par. 129,132, examiner considers the time between intervals to be said “short-term data dissemination loss”).
In claim 10, Fern discloses all of claim 3. Fern further discloses wherein determining a section load includes computing and storing a ratio of section load magnitudes of the sections (Par. 133 “RMS”) using previously stored section loads if (examiner notes that Per MPEP 2111.04 “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”) a long-term data dissemination loss occurs in the network (Par. 129,132).
In claim 11, Fern discloses all of claim 3. Fern further discloses clearing the memories (Par. 177) if (examiner notes that Per MPEP 2111.04 “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”) a known change in a topology of the network occurs (Par. 201 “faulted segment is isolated and service restored”).
In claim 12, Fern discloses determining the section load in each section along the feeder occurs in a control device (Par. 184).
In claim 13, Fern discloses all of claim 12. Fern further discloses wherein the control device is one of the plurality of switching devices, more than one of the plurality of switching devices or a sub-station (Par. 184 “substation”).
In claim 14, Fern discloses wherein the current and/or voltage measurements are phasor values or magnitudes depending on the measuring capability (Par. 185).
In claim 15, Fern discloses wherein the switching devices are reclosers, sectionalizers or circuit breakers (Par. 25 “re-closer”).
In claim 21, Fern discloses all of claim 2. Fern further discloses wherein configuring between open and closed switching devices of the plurality of switching devices comprises: before knowing that a fault occurred has occurred in the network configuring between open and closed switching devices of the plurality of switching devices from the first switching device to the next switching device such that the total feeder load is below the total supportable load (Par. 201 “facilitate maximum tie-transfer capacity without violating system stability constraints”).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fern in view of Dzombak (US 6526359 B1).
In claim 5, Fern discloses wherein each switching device includes an average (Par. 188), and wherein determining the section loads includes determining the section loads in a division (Par. 192) as a average of a recent section load and past section loads (Par. 188).
Fern does not explicitly disclose a median filter.
Dzombak teaches determining a median filter (Column 5 Lines 44-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the average of Fern be based on a median filter as taught by Dzombak for the disclosed benefit of removing noise from the output signal (Dzombak Column 5 Lines 44-52) thus leading to a more accurate system.
In claim 6, Fern in view of Dzombak teach all of claim 5, including the median filters. Fern further discloses using two-dimensional sample points for determining the section loads for active and reactive power (Par. 71 127).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112 rejections, they have been updated for the amended claims. The 101 rejections have been withdrawn as indicated above but could return based on later amendments. Regarding applicants 102 arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, Ferr does disclose “connecting loads to a power distribution network that includes determining loads on sections defined by or between power sources and switching devices” and “configuring switches based upon section load requirement and in view of power source load capability to configure or reconfigure the power distribution network so that coupled load is supported by available sources”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180366978 A1 INTELLIGENT GRID OPERATING SYSTEM TO MANAGE DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES IN A GRID NETWORK; US 20160204606 A1 GRID NETWORK GATEWAY AGGREGATION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights