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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments submitted on 09/29/2025 wherein claims 1 and 16-29 are pending and ready for examination. Claims 2-15 were previously canceled.
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, and 23-24 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 Bruström 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) Bruström 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 Bruström 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” (Bruström, fig 1, fig 2, ¶ 0044-¶ 0045, ¶ 0065-
¶ 0069: Bruström 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).
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: Bruström 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remarks) filed on 02/05/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding III. Remarks, page 6-9 of Applicant’s remarks, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive with respect to the amendments. New grounds for rejection are necessitated by the amendments and are presented above. Additionally, because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on references applied in the prior rejection of record, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues with respect to Taft “The cited art does not teach receiving both fault and non-fault events as claimed” (remarks, page 6) and “None of the references disclose or suggest dynamic, event-timing-based topology regeneration” (remarks page 7.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taft teaches "grid state measurement and operational data process may comprise deriving the grid state and grid topology at a given point in time" (Taft, 1 0109) where deriving grid topology discloses "regenerate a network topology of the electric grid." "Operational data" 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). moreover, Taft teaches identifying “fault types upon detection of fault conditions of a fault in a power grid” disclosing receiving “fault events.” Additionally, deriving the grid state and grid topology at a given point in time," using the broadest reasonable interpretation, teaches “dynamic, event-timing-based topology regeneration” as the “operational data” comprises “a real time grid operational database” (Table 1 Operational Data 137).
Applicant argues “The claimed calibration step is absent from the art” (remarks page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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,” discloses a calibration model and is used to “generate a representation of the particular feeder circuit at the particular time” (network topology regeneration.)
Applicant argues “No reference suggests determining switch states solely from distributed event timing as claimed” (remarks page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taft teaches “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.”)
Applicant argues “Only with impermissible hindsight could the cited art be modified to arrive at Applicant's claimed subject matter” (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. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Henig et al., U.S. Pat. No. 9,513,174 B2, teaches monitoring for faults in a smart grid.
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
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857