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 .
Priority
Application 17/795,705, filed on 07/27/2022, is a 371 of PCT/Fl2021/050109, filed on 02/17/2021, which claims benefit of 62/977,893, filed on 02/18/2020.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments submitted on 04/27/2026 wherein claims 1 and 16-34 are pending and ready for examination. Claims 2-15 were previously canceled. Claims 30-34 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 18, 23-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström et al., hereinafter Burström, U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0137117 A1 in view of Tobin, U.S. Patent No. 6,727,682 B1 in view of Taft U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0002186 A1.
Regarding Independent claim 1 Burström teaches:
“A system for management of an electric grid” (Burström, Abstract)
“the system comprising at least one monitoring server and at least one grid monitoring sensor communicably coupled to the at least one monitoring server, wherein a given grid monitoring sensor is installed to a given electrical utility pole of the electric grid and wherein each of the at least one grid monitoring sensor comprises: -a magnetic sensor for measuring a time-variant magnetic field induced by current transients in phase conductors of the electric grid without direct electrical contact” (Burström, fig 1, fig 2, ¶ 0044-0045: Burström teaches a node 10 (monitoring server) that contains a B field (magnetic field) sensor 11 (monitoring sensor) where the node 10 is mounted directly on the poles 2 (see fig. 1 and 2). The magnetic field sensor is “configured to measure at least second parameter related to a magnetic field around the at least one power line 3-4” (¶ 0045) which is used to “identify local anomalies” (¶ 0045) including a grounded connection, a short circuit, or broken insulator causing an arc (¶ 0065) which cause current transients in the phase conductors, thereby disclosing the magnetic sensor measures “a time-variant magnetic field induced by current transients in phase conductors of the electric grid without direct electrical contact” as the detected field would b a time-variant magnetic field as, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, the current in a power line is an alternating current and therefore produces a changing magnetic field therefore a time-variant magnetic field.)
While Burström teaches “identify the failure and location based on the system level anomalies” (¶ 0062) and “The current direction sensor is used to detect and localize faults in the power grid” (¶ 0083, see also ¶ 0092) where the current direction sensor is used to determine location thereby disclosing ”a location sensor for recording and transmitting measurements,” where this information is used to create a “Situation Picture” which is a “map of the area where problems are presented in real-time at their localized position,” (¶ 0056) Burström does not explicitly teach the measurements are timestamped.
Tobin teaches that any of “the data can also be time stamped and stored in memory 46 for later retrieval and processing” (col 6 line 34-35, also see col 6 line 35-47) where the data is data from sensors in addition to data derived from sensor signals (col 5 line 31-43).
Both Burström and Tobin teach fault analysis using sensor data therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system for detecting local anomalies in an overhead power grid as taught by Burström with the timestamping of data as disclosed by Tobin as timestamping data assures that the data from multiple sensors is reconstructed in its actual sequence of events in order to “accurately reproduce the conductor currents as a sequence of values over time” (col 6 line 1-2).
Burström teaches:
“wherein the at least one monitoring server is configured to: -receive monitoring data from the at least one grid monitoring sensor on events associated with the electrical grid, the monitoring data comprising measured data obtained by using the at least one grid monitoring sensor and including both fault and non-fault events selected from voltage spikes, load switching and feeder tripping” (Burström, fig 1, fig 2, ¶ 0044-¶ 0045, ¶ 0065-
¶ 0069: Burström teaches “a processing unit, μP, 13 is configured to separate normal and abnormal behaviour using historic data stored in a memory 14” (¶ 0044) where normal and abnormal disclose fault and non-fault events. Moreover “a magnetic field sensor 11 configured to measure at least second parameter related to a magnetic field around the at least one power line 3-5” where “the processing unit 13 is configured to: identify local anomalies by . . . by comparing the measured at least second parameter with data stored in the memory 14 to establish at least a second relative parameter” (¶ 0045) disclosing the monitoring server receives monitoring data from the at least one grid monitoring sensor on events associated with the electrical grid where the measured data is data due to a grounded connection, a short circuit, a broken insulator causing an arc, and/or a backwards ground fault (¶ 0065-¶ 0069) disclosing voltage spikes.)
Burström does not teach:
“regenerate a network topology of the electric grid based on correlated timing of the fault or non-fault events, use the non-fault events as calibration points to improve an accuracy of the network topology regeneration, and determine switching states of disconnectors along grid lines of the electric grid based on timing relationships between the detected non-fault event data and the regenerated network topology.”
Taft teaches:
“regenerate a network topology of the electric grid based on correlated timing of the fault or non-fault events, use the non-fault events as calibration points to improve an accuracy of the network topology regeneration, and determine switching states of disconnectors along grid lines of the electric grid based on timing relationships between the detected non-fault event data and the regenerated network topology.” (Taft, Table 1, ¶ 0037,¶ 0055, ¶ 0109, ¶ 0123-¶ 0124: Taft teaches using “networks, servers, sensors, etc.” to “monitor and manage the smart grid infrastructure” (¶ 0037). Additionally, Taft teaches the “grid state measurement and operational data process may comprise deriving the grid state and grid topology at a given point in time” (¶ 0109) where “operational data” comprises “a real time grid operational database” and includes “data measurements obtained from sensors and devices attached to the grid components” (Table 1 Operational Data 137) which “may include, but is not limited to, switch state, feeder state, capacitor state, section state, meter state, FCI state, line sensor state, voltage, current, real power, reactive power etc.” (¶ 0055) where “feeder state” discloses a “non-fault event” (see written specification, page 20 line 3-25) where a “given point in time” discloses “correlated timing.” Additionally, fig 14 illustrates the “Fault Intelligence processes” (¶ 0123) where fault data “may be sent by a variety of devices” to the “complex event processing” (¶ 0123) and “various fault data, grid state, connectivity data, and switch state may be set to the substation analytics for event detection and characterization” (¶ 0123) where the “event data may also be received by the operational data bus” (¶ 0124). Therefore the “operational data,” including “event data” which includes “fault data,” “switch state,” and “feeder state,” are used to derive “grid topology at a given point in time.” Moreover, Taft teaches “The connectivity data base may hold the grid topology information as built in order to determine the baseline connectivity model” (¶ 0110) where the “baseline connectivity model” and the historian database are used to “generate a representation of the particular feeder circuit at the particular time” (¶ 0113) disclosing “use the non-fault events as calibration points to improve an accuracy of the network topology regeneration” as the grid topology information includes “operational data” which includes “data measurements obtained from sensors and devices attached to the grid components” including “feeder state” disclosing a “non-fault event” which is used in determining the “baseline connectivity model,” which discloses a calibration model and is used to “generate a representation of the particular feeder circuit at the particular time” (network topology regeneration.) “After which, the historian database may be accessed (based on the particular time) in order to determine the values of the switches in the particular feeder circuit” (¶ 0113) disclosing the switching states are “based on timing relationships between the detected non-fault event data and the regenerated network topology.”)
Both Burström and Taft teach identifying and managing power grid faults therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström by including Taft’s method for determining topology regeneration in order to provide a power grid with “improved management” (Taft, ¶ 0007) as the “management of the power grid is often inefficient and costly” (Taft, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 18 Burström as modified teaches:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to use the network topology information about the electric grid to determine the location of a fault in the electric grid by following the route the grid lines have in the electric grid” (Burström, ¶ 0056: Burström teaches using the grid topology to create a map in order to isolate the fault (¶ 0056).)
Regarding claim 23 Burström as modified teaches:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to provide the monitoring data to at least one grid application server” (Burström, fig 3, fig 4, ¶ 0045: Burström teaches processing unit 13 is configured to “forward data related to the identified local anomalies to a system controller 22 via a communication interface 15” (¶ 0045).)
Regarding claim 24 Burström as modified does not teach:
“the at least one monitoring server is further configured to analyze the monitoring data using statistical inference algorithms to determine an operational condition of the electric grid and predict maintenance likelihood thereof.”
Taft teaches:
“the at least one monitoring server is further configured to analyze monitoring data using statistical inference algorithms to determine an operational condition of the electric grid and predict maintenance likelihood thereof” (Taft, fig. 8, ¶ 0143: Taft teaches “the remote asset monitoring processes may use trend analysis in order to predict when the particular portion of the grid may fail, and may schedule maintenance in advance of (or concurrently with) the time when the particular portion of the grid may fail” (¶ 0143) where “trend analysis” discloses “statistical inference algorithms,” “when the particular portion of the grid may fail” discloses an “operational condition of the electric grid,” and “schedule maintenance” discloses “predict maintenance likelihood.” Additionally, Taft teaches using servers to “Monitor and manage the smart grid infrastructure” (¶ 0037)).
Both Burström and Taft teach identifying and managing power grid faults therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including predicting maintenance by determining operational conditions of the electric grid using statistical inference algorithms as part of “remote asset monitoring process” as taught by Taft because remote asset monitoring processes may focus on condition-based maintenance” leading to the health of the power grid improving (Taft, ¶ 0139).
Regarding claim 30 Burström teaches:
“more than two grid monitoring sensors detect an event” (Burström, fig. 1, fig. 2, ¶ 0019: Burström teaches “The node and system aims to detect most types of failures on a power line in a grid, determine the cause of the failure (not only a symptom, such as grounding failure, but also a real cause) which is possible to localize” (¶ 0019). Fig 1 depicts a node (10) on several telephone poles in an electric grid. Additionally, fig 2 depicts a node which includes a “B field sensor” (11), “E field sensor” (12), and a “current direction sensor” (17) disclosing “more than two grid monitoring sensors detect an event.”)
Claim 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin and Taft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madonna et al., hereinafter Madonna, U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0149611 A1,
Regarding claim 16 Burström as modified does not teach:
“the non-fault events are used to determine the switching states of disconnectors along the grid lines of the electric grid to determine whether the disconnectors along the grid lines are on or off.”
Madonna teaches:
“the non-fault events are used to determine the switching states of disconnectors along the grid lines of the electric grid to determine whether the disconnectors along the grid lines are on or off” (Madonna, fig. 1, ¶ 0027: Madonna teaches determining the “electrical connection status (activated or inactivated) of the disconnector” during “normal operation” by determining if leakage current is flowing through the surge arrester 120 and the disconnector device 110. If leakage current is flowing through the surge arrester and the disconnector, the disconnector is in an inactivated state, if leakage current is not flowing through the surge arrester and the disconnector, the disconnector is in an activated state (¶ 0027)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including determining the state of the disconnectors as taught by Madonna in order to safely provide maintenance to the part of the electrical grid that has been disconnected from the power source to provide a system where “the rate of falsely indicated activated states” is reduced (Madonna, ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 21 Burström as modified teaches:
“measure electric field induced by electrical power lines in the electric grid; (Burström, fig. 2, ¶ 0044-¶ 0045: Burström teaches measuring the electric field using an E filed (electric field) sensor 12 (¶ 0044).)
measure one or more parameters relating to operational characteristics of the given electrical utility pole” (Burström, ¶ 0044: Burström teaches collected “data related to environmental aspects (such as temperature, humidity, etc)” (¶ 0044) where temperature discloses an operational characteristic of the utility pole (See Specification, page 11, line 7-14).)
Burström as modified does not teach:
“preprocess measured data relating to the electric grid for filtering the measured data;
communicate the preprocessed measured data to the at least one monitoring server”
Madonna teaches:
“a given grid monitoring sensor installed to a given electrical utility pole (see claim 1 above).
“preprocess measured data relating to the electric grid for filtering the measured data; communicate the preprocessed measured data to the at least one monitoring server” (Madonna, ¶ 0084, ¶ 0121: Madonna teaches the measuring device 100 filters data
(¶ 0121) and the filtered data from the measuring device is transmitted to the central unit 160
(¶ 0084)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including filtering measured data as taught by Madonna in order to eliminate data not needed for specific calculations in order to provide a system where “the rate of falsely indicated activated states” is reduced (Madonna, ¶ 0032).
Claim 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin and Taft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Miron, U.S. Pub. No 2019/0271731 A1.
Regarding claim 17 Burström as modified does not teach:
the at least one monitoring server is configured to determine time differences in propagation delays between
Miron teaches:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to determine time differences in propagation delays between (Miron, fig. 7, ¶ 0149-¶ 0154: Figure 7 depicts a flowchart where measurements of measuring devices are evaluated to determine if a fault exists (steps 75-83) where the measurement include “a particular irregularity such as a transient” (¶ 0149) which are used to determine if a fault exists. The location of the transient (fault) is determined by “comparing the exact time of measuring the transient by two or more grid measuring devices” (¶ 0152) where “GPS module 26 enables time measurements of about 10 nano-seconds, and thus enables estimating the location of a fault to about 3 meters” (¶ 0154).)
Both Burström and Miron teach detecting faults in an electric grid therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including determining the location of a fault using time differences in propagation delays as disclosed by Miron because doing so allows for accurately measuring signal travel times for synchronized operations leading to increased reliability and reduced outages in order to provide a system where “faults and/or suspicious situations may be detected faster” (Micron, ¶ 0125).
Regarding claim 20 Burström as modified does not teach:
“said non-fault events are caused by voltage spikes.”
Miron teaches:
“said non-fault events are caused by voltage spikes” (Miron, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0100: Miron teaches the “term ‘transient’ may refer to any type of short-time or instantaneous change of voltage and/or current and/or power, such as a spike, a surge, etc.” (¶ 0100) disclosing a “voltage spike” is a “non-fault” as Miron teaches a fault occurs when “the repeated change of value is substantially different from change of value between successive measurements within the time period of at least one second measuring device proximal to the first measuring device” (¶ 0025) and the “voltage spike” is just for a “short time or instantaneous” and not “repeated”).
Both Burström and Miron teach detecting faults in an electric grid therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including non-fault events caused by voltage spikes as taught by Miron to improve the systems ability to differentiate between temporary disturbances and actual faults thereby reducing false alarms and providing a more reliable fault detecting system.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin and Taft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fernandes U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0077336 A1.
Regarding claim 19 Burström as modified does not teach:
“the at least one grid monitoring sensor is configured to use the non-fault events as calibration points.”
Fernandes teaches:
“the at least one grid monitoring sensor is configured to use the non-fault events as calibration points” (Fernandes, ¶ 0129: Fernandes teaches “The charging current is directly proportional to the line voltage and is calibrated at the time of installation” (¶ 0129), “The PLUM (the sensors) is dynamically calibrated ‘on-line’ through a measurement of the change in a precisely known and pre-calibrated internal capacitance due to second order stray capacitances” (¶ 0129) disclosing the sensors are calibrated with respect to “non-fault events”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including calibrating sensors as taught by Fernandes in order to provide a system which “further improves accuracy using a unique calibration technique during initial installation of the PLUM sensor modules” (Fernandes, Abstract).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin and Taft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qi Huang, hereinafter Qi, CN102645613A as evidenced by Cole, Basic Explanation of the Electric Power Grid, downloaded from https://3phaseassociates.com/basic-explanation-of-the-electric-power-grid/.
Regarding claim 22 Burström as modified does not teach:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to:
process measured time-variant magnetic field data from the at least one grid monitoring sensor; and
estimate fault location in the electric grid based on the processed time-variant magnetic field data.”
Qi teaches:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to: process measured time-variant magnetic field data from the at least one grid monitoring sensor and estimate fault location in the electric grid based on the processed time-variant magnetic field data” (Qi, fig 1, 3rd page § Summary of Invention, 6th page last paragraph-7th page first paragraph: Qi teaches a system that “relates to a transmission line fault location, in particular to a transmission line fault location method based on non-contact magnetic field measures” (Technical Field) where the ”transmission line” is part of the electric grid as evidenced by Cole, in figure 2 of “Basic Explanation of the Electric Power Grid,” the system consists of a microprocessor CPU, sensors, data acquisition modules, storage modules, communication modules, signal preprocessing modules, and power supply modules where “The processor controls the entire system and continuously collects data” (6th page last paragraph) where the preprocessed collected data includes magnetic field data (3rd page § Summary of Invention) where the magnetic field data “can also be used to further determine the fault type and fault point” (3rd page § Summary of Invention) where the “fault point” discloses the “fault location.” Additionally, ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström by including determining the fault location using magnetic field data as taught by Qi as “it has been proved that this method (using magnetic field data) can improve the accuracy of fault location” (Qi, 2nd page § Background technique, 1st paragraph).
Claims 25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin and Taft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qi Huang, hereinafter Qi, CN102645613A, in view Miron, U.S. Pub. No 2019/0271731 A1 and as evidenced by Cole, Basic Explanation of the Electric Power Grid, downloaded from https://3phaseassociates.com/basic-explanation-of-the-electric-power-grid/.
Regarding claim 25 Burström as modified does not teach:
measuring the time-variant magnetic field induced by current transients in the electric grid;
recording a timestamp for each measurement using the location sensor
processing measured time-variant magnetic field data; and
estimating a fault location in the electric grid based on the processed measured time-variant magnetic field data.”
Miron teaches:
“recording a timestamp for each measurement using the location sensor” (Miron ¶ 0003, ¶ 0065: Miron teaches the “grid measuring device” records its location (¶ 0065) and a “plurality of measurements with their respective time of occurrence” (¶ 0003).)
Both Burström and Miron teach detecting faults in an electric grid therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including recording timestamps for measurement of the location sensor because recording timestamps ensure data from different sensors are aligned perfectly in time improving the overall reliability of the system in order to provide a system where “faults and/or suspicious situations may be detected faster” (Micron, ¶ 0125).
Qi teaches:
“measuring the time-variant magnetic field induced by current transients in the electric grid; processing measured time-variant magnetic field data; and estimating a fault location in the electric grid based on the processed measured time-variant magnetic field data.” (Qi, fig 1, 2nd page 1st - 3rd paragraph, 3rd page § Summary of Invention, 6th page last paragraph-7th page first paragraph: Qi teaches a “transmission line fault location method based on non-contact magnetic field measurement” related to a power grid (2nd page 1st - 3rd paragraph) as the ”transmission line” is part of the electric grid as evidenced by Cole, in figure 2 of “Basic Explanation of the Electric Power Grid,” and teaching a system that includes sensors and data acquisition module for collecting magnetic field data (6th page last paragraph) where the preprocessed collected data includes magnetic field data (3rd page § Summary of Invention) and where the magnetic field data “can also be used to further determine the fault type and fault point” (3rd page § Summary of Invention) where the “fault point” discloses the “fault location.” The detected magnetic field would be a “time-variant magnetic field” as, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, the current in a transmission line associated with a power grid is an alternating current and therefore produces a changing magnetic field and therefore a “time-variant magnetic field.” The magnetic field data “can also be used to further determine the fault type and fault point” (3rd page § Summary of Invention) where the “fault point” discloses the “fault location”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including determining the fault location using magnetic field data as disclosed by Qi as “it has been proved that this method (using magnetic field data) can improve the accuracy of fault location” (Qi, 2nd page § Background technique, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 27 Burström as modified does not teach:
“the method comprises detecting the non- fault events by using the at least one grid monitoring sensor and communicating the non-fault events that are detected to the at least one monitoring server”
Miron teaches:
“the method comprises detecting the non- fault events by using the at least one grid monitoring sensor and communicating the non-fault events that are detected to the at least one monitoring server” (Miron, fig. 6, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0105-¶ 0106: Miron teaches comparing “each measurement with all abnormality identification rules” (¶ 0105) where “the abnormality type associates the measurement with one or more possible faults. If (step 68) a measurement is identified as abnormal relevant measurements of neighboring grid measurement devices should be examined to determine if the fault exists and the type of fault” (¶ 0106) where “if a measurement is identified as abnormal” teaches not all measurements are abnormal and as a result are “detecting non-fault events” within the grid. Miron teaches the “grid measuring devices 10” may communicate with an “area controller 31” which communicates with a “central controller or server 32” or may communicate directly with the “central controller or server 32” over a wide area wireless communication network (¶ 0062) disclosing a server receiving “monitoring data” from sensors.)
Both Burström and Miron teach detecting faults in an electric grid therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including detecting non-fault events as disclosed by Micron because doing so improves the systems ability to differentiate between temporary disturbances and actual faults thereby reducing false alarms and providing a more reliable fault detecting system leading to a system where “faults and/or suspicious situations may be detected faster” (Micron, ¶ 0125).
Regarding claim 28 Burström does not teach:
“the method comprises determining time differences in propagation delays of signals transmitted between at least two grid monitoring sensors”
Miron teaches:
“the method comprises determining time differences in propagation delays of signals transmitted between at least two grid monitoring sensors” (Miron, fig. 7, ¶ 0149-¶ 0154: Figure 7 depicts a flowchart where measurements of measuring devices are evaluated to determine if a fault exists (steps 75-83) where the measurement include “a particular irregularity such as a transient” (¶ 0149) which are used to determine if a fault exists. The location of the transient (fault) is determined by “comparing the exact time of measuring the transient by two or more grid measuring devices” (¶ 0152) where “GPS module 26 enables time measurements of about 10 nano-seconds, and thus enables estimating the location of a fault to about 3 meters” (¶ 0154).)
Both Burström and Miron teach detecting faults in an electric grid therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including determining the location of a fault using time differences in propagation delays as disclosed by Miron because doing so allows for accurately measuring signal travel times for synchronized operations leading to increased reliability and reduced outages in order to provide a system where “faults and/or suspicious situations may be detected faster” (Micron, ¶ 0125).
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 cites analogous limitations to claim 18 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin, Taft, Miron, and Qi as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of and further in view of Madonna et al., hereinafter Madonna, U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0149611 A1.
Regarding claim 26 Burström as modified teaches:
“receiving the monitoring data for the events associated with the electric grid” (Burström, ¶ 0045: Burström teaches “the processing unit 13 is configured to: identify local anomalies by . . . by comparing the measured at least second parameter with data stored in the memory 14 to establish at least a second relative parameter” (¶ 0045) disclosing the processing unit receives “monitoring data for the events associated with the electric grid.”
Burström does not teach:
“determining, based on the non-fault events, the switching states of disconnectors along the grid lines of the electric grid.”
Madonna teaches:
“determining, based on the non-fault events, the switching states of disconnectors along the grid lines of the electric grid” (Madonna, fig. 1, ¶ 0027: Madonna teaches determining the “electrical connection status (activated or inactivated) of the disconnector” during “normal operation” by determining if leakage current is flowing through the surge arrester 120 and the disconnector device 110. If leakage current is flowing through the surge arrester and the disconnector, the disconnector is in an inactivated state, if leakage current is not flowing through the surge arrester and the disconnector, the disconnector is in an activated state (¶ 0027)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including determining the state of the disconnectors as taught by Madonna in order to safely provide maintenance to the part of the electrical grid that has been disconnected from the power source to provide a system where “the rate of falsely indicated activated states” is reduced (Madonna, ¶ 0032).
Claim 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin and Taft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Goutard et al., hereinafter Goutard, U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0282508 A1.
Claim 31: “the at least one monitoring server is configured to create an inter-distance matrix based on sensor data acquired from the more than two grid monitoring sensors, wherein the inter-distance matrix provides unique identification of paths between the sensors and thereby enables fault location to be uniquely pinpointed in the grid topology”
Regarding claim 31 while Burström teaches “identifying the failure and location based on the system level anomalies” (see ¶ 0059-¶ 0062) Burström does not teach: using an “inter-distance matrix” to determine the “fault location.”
Goutard teaches: using PCA (principal component analysis) among other algorithms used to analyze data (¶ 0172) disclosing a distance matrix. PCA is used to analyze data “associated with systems and methods disclosed herein to facilitate making inferences or determinations related to systems and methods disclosed herein” (¶ 0173) including identifying “the fault and its location in real or near real time”(¶ 0083). Therefore the combination of Burström as modified and Goutard teach the limitation “the at least one monitoring server is configured to create an inter-distance matrix based on sensor data acquired from the more than two grid monitoring sensors, wherein the inter-distance matrix provides unique identification of paths between the sensors and thereby enables fault location to be uniquely pinpointed in the grid topology.”
Both Burström as modified and Goutard teach fault analysis using sensor data it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system for detecting local anomalies in an overhead power grid using AI algorithms as taught by Burström (¶ 0056) by including the PCA algorithm as taught by Goutard to improve computational efficiency by streamlining computations in order to provide a system where “fault identification and location in real or near real time can result in a shorter outage duration” (Goutard, ¶ 0083).
Claim 33: “the at least one monitoring server is configured to cluster time-variant magnetic data obtained in a given timeframe to generate a meta- event indicating a group of events that are associated with a single cause”
Regarding claim 33: While Burström teaches analyzing measure parameters (data which include “time-variant magnet data” (see claim 1 above)) in order to identify anomalies (¶ 0078) and the deviating events (group of events) which are the changes that “sensors register during the events” (¶ 0079) disclosing “events that are associated with a single cause” where the “cause” is the anomaly, however Burström does not teach the analysis is done using clustering.
Goutard teaches: using cluster analysis among other algorithms used to analyze data (¶ 0172). Clustering is used to analyze data “associated with systems and methods disclosed herein to facilitate making inferences or determinations related to systems and methods disclosed herein” (¶ 0173) including identifying the “root cause (s) or source(s) of an abnormal condition” (¶ 0123) using “data received from the one or more data sources” (¶ 0124). Therefore the combination of Burström as modified and Goutard teach the limitation “the at least one monitoring server is configured to cluster time-variant magnetic data obtained in a given timeframe to generate a meta-event indicating a group of events that are associated with a single cause”
Both Burström as modified and Goutard teach fault analysis using sensor data therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system for detecting local anomalies in an overhead power grid using AI algorithms as taught by Burström (¶ 0056) by including clustering techniques as taught by Goutard to improve computational efficiency by streamlining computations in order to provide a system where “fault identification and location in real or near real time can result in a shorter outage duration” (Goutard, ¶ 0083).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin, Taft, and Goutard as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view Miron, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0271731 A1.
Regarding claim 32 Burström as modified does not teach:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to uniquely pinpoint the fault location when information relating to paths between the sensors is unavailable to the at least one monitoring server.”
Miron teaches:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to uniquely pinpoint the fault location when information relating to paths between the sensors is unavailable to the at least one monitoring server” (Miron, fig. 7, ¶ 0149-¶ 0154: Figure 7 depicts a flowchart where measurements of measuring devices are evaluated to determine if a fault exists (steps 75-83) where the measuring devices include current and/or voltage measurement sensors (¶ 0003) and store measurements including those with “a particular irregularity such as a transient” (¶ 0149) which are used to determine if a fault exists. The location of the transient (fault) is determined by “comparing the exact time of measuring the transient by two or more grid measuring devices” (¶ 0152) where “GPS module 26 enables time measurements of about 10 nano-seconds, and thus enables estimating the location of a fault to about 3 meters” (¶ 0154) thereby disclosing “the at least one monitoring server (grid measuring device, see fig. 1) is configured to uniquely pinpoint the fault location when information relating to paths between the sensors is unavailable to the at least one monitoring server” as the “information relating to paths between the sensors is unavailable” and is therefore not use to “pinpoint the fault location.”)
Both Burström and Miron teach detecting faults in an electric grid therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for monitoring an electric grid as taught by Burström as modified by including determining the location of a fault without using information relating to paths between the sensors as disclosed by Miron because doing so allows for accurately measuring signal travel times for synchronized operations leading to increased reliability and reduced outages in order to provide a system where “faults and/or suspicious situations may be detected faster” (Micron, ¶ 0125).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burström in view of Tobin, Taft and Goutard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Huldén, U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0022321 A1.
Claim 34:
“the at least one monitoring server is configured to analyze a high speed waveform using adaptive wavelet correlation and synchronization algorithms to accurately align timings of the group of events”
Regarding claim 34: While Burström teaches identifying anomalies (¶ 0078) and the deviating events which are the changes that “sensors register during the events” (¶ 0079) disclosing the events occur due to the anomaly, Burström does not teach aligning the timing of the events.
Huldén teaches time signals are auto-correlated and cross-correlated to time align the detector signals where the cross-correlation is a wavelet-based cross-correlation (see ¶ 0039-¶ 0040). A person of ordinary skill in the art would use the well know techniques of auto-correlation and wavelet-based cross-correlation in order to achieve the expected result of, in this case, aligning time signals as cross-correlation and auto-correlation are two of the most common methods to align or synchronize data (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remarks) filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 page 7-10 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's conclusion is based on an improper combination of references and impermissible hindsight. The Examiner's motivation for combining Burstr6m and Taft appears to be a generic desire to achieve an improved management of the power grid (Office Action, p. 8). However, an obviousness rejection cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; there must be some articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion. A simple desire to improve a general system does not provide a sufficient reason to combine references whose specific technical teachings are materially different and incompatible” (Remarks, page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. The combination of Burström and Taft does not use impermissible hindsight reasoning as the rejection relies the teachings of Burström and Taft discovered in their cited publications and not on the Applicant’s specification. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues “Taft discloses a fundamentally different, database-centric reconstruction approach. As presented in Applicant's previously submitted comments, Taft derives a point-in-time topology by applying a grid state snapshot from a historian database to a base connectivity model (See e.g. Taft, paras. 0110-0113). This connectivity model is described as essentially static, changing only when the physical grid structure is altered (See Taft, para. 0110). Taft determines switch values from stored records in the historian database, not from the timing of distributed, live events as claimed.
The Examiner attempts to bridge the significant gap between Taft's disclosure and Applicant's claimed subject matter by treating:
- Taft's "given point in time" as equivalent to the claimed "correlated timing";
- Taft's static "baseline connectivity model" as equivalent to the claimed use of
non-fault events as dynamic "calibration points"; and
- Taft's "historian derived switch values" as equivalent to the claimed
"determining switching states... based on timing relationships."
Applicant submits that these equivalences are incorrect. Taft does not teach or suggest a dynamic, event-timing-based system. A person of ordinary skill in the art, starting with Burström's distributed anomaly detection system, would not be motivated to replace or supplement its event- based architecture with Taft's static, historian-centric reconstruction system. To do so, and to then reinterpret Taft's database model as the claimed dynamic regeneration system, would require the very hindsight that is forbidden” (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Taft does teach an historical database, Taft also teaches “The grid state measurement and operational data process may comprise deriving the grid state and grid topology at a given point in time” (¶ 0109) were the “grid topology may be derived for a predetermined time, such as in real time” (¶ 0110). In addition, Taft teaches a GPS Timing device which “provides high resolution timing to coordinate applications and synchronize data collection across a wide geographic area” (Table 3 page 11) where the “grid state measurement data” . . . “at a given point in time” (¶ 0109) has been time stamped and synchronized by the GPS Timing device. The measurement data management system and Grid Data/Analytics Services are part of the INDE core as depicted in fig. 2 (see also table 1 page 5) and the GPS Timing device is part of the INDE device as depicted in fig. 5A (see also Table 3 page 11). Therefore Taft’s “given point in time” is equivalent to the claimed “correlated timing.” In addition, Taft teaches “measuring and capturing grid state information (this related to operational data pertaining to the grid . .” where the “measuring and capturing” includes time-stamping and synchronized (see above) and “updating the grid state information to the connectivity/operational data store in the appropriate format as well as forwarding this information to the historian for persistence so that a point in time grid topology may be derived at a later point in time” (¶ 0109) where “The connectivity data base may hold the grid topology information as built in order to determine the baseline connectivity model” (¶ 0110) as the “baseline connectivity model” is derived from data in the “connectivity database” that has been updated with real-time, time-stamped and correlated, Taft discloses “the non-fault events as calibration points.” Finally, as the “baseline connectivity model” changes with respect to time, the switching states change with respect to the “model” and the historian database is accessed based on the time in order to “determine the values of the switches in the particular feeder circuit” (¶ 0113).
Applicant argues “Regarding claim 16 (in view of Madonna): Madonna is cited for determining the switching state of disconnectors. However, even if Madonna teaches this feature in isolation, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to integrate it into the specific dynamic, event-timing-based topology regeneration system recited by Applicant in claim 1” (remarks page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, determining the switching state of disconnectors is a safety issue in order to be able to provide maintenance when part of the electric grid has been disconnected from the power source.
Applicant argues “Regarding claim 17 (in view of Miron): Miron is cited for determining fault location via time differences in propagation delays. While Miron teaches location finding based on timing, it does not suggest using this information within the broader claimed system for dynamic topology regeneration based on both fault and non-fault events. The combination is based on hindsight” (remarks page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. The combination of Burström and Taft does not use impermissible hindsight reasoning as the rejection relies the teachings of Lawson and Azuma discovered in their cited publications and not on the Applicant’s specification. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues “Regarding claim 19 (in view of Fernandes): Fernandes is cited for using non-fault events as calibration points. As with the other references, there is no motivation to combine Fernandes's specific calibration technique with the fundamentally different systems of Burström and Taft to arrive at the claimed subject matter as a whole” (remarks page 9) and “Regarding claim 22 (in view of Qi): Qi is cited for processing magnetic field data to estimate a fault location. This is a general teaching that does not remedy the lack of motivation to combine Burström and Taft to arrive at the specific dynamic topology regeneration system of claim 1” (remarks page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues “Regarding claim 20 (in view of Miron): Miron is cited for non-fault events caused by voltage spikes. This does not cure the deficiencies of the underlying combination, as the core inventive concept of dynamic topology regeneration is absent from the prior art of record” (remarks page 9) and “Regarding claims 25-29 (in view of Qi, Miron, Madonna): These claims recite a method corresponding to the system of claim 1. The rejections are improper for the same reasons the rejections of the corresponding system claims are improper. The combination of references fails to teach or suggest the claimed method of dynamic topology regeneration based on correlated event timing” (remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neither Miron nor Qi nor Madonna are not used to disclose “dynamic topology regeneration.”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, Wang et al., U.S. Pub. No 2020/0293032 A1, Wang teaches a method and system for monitoring a power substation using data from several sensors and machine learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights