DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 2 and 9. Objections to claims 2 and 9 due to minor informalities are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 3-6 and 8-9 to provide limitation clarification. Previous rejections to claims 3-6 due to lack of clarity are withdrawn.
However, amended claims 8-9 have not remedied initial rejection due to indefiniteness. Amended claims have replaced “taken into account” with “considered”, which is also an indefinite term. Previous rejections to claims 8-9 are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claim 1 and the cancelation of claim 11. Applicants arguments have been fully considered but not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-10 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.7] amended independent claim 1 taken as a whole amounts to significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-10 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes performed on a computer) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2A (Prong 2)/Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception and/or Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre/post solution) per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Adding a final step of storing/accessing data does not add a meaningful limitation to the process for modeling a network topology. Also, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following relevant computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, etc.. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for rejection is provided for claims 2-10 below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but not persuasive. Previous rejections to claims 1-10 are maintained.
Note: amendments to claims warrant new grounds of rejection.
See Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below.
Applicant’s arguments [Pg.9-11] with respect to Ken and independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the limitations of claims 1-6 and 10, and claims 7-9 stand rejected as unpatentable over Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, in further view of Rossi, and in further view of Kan - as outlined in Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 section below. Thus, Applicant’s arguments not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 9. The claims recite the limitation "considered" in
line 3, respectively. It is unclear what "considered" means. Referring to Applicant's Specification disclosure doesn't provide clarity as to the use of the term. For
purposes of compact prosecution, "considered" will be interpreted as used in any non-limiting way. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims are directed towards mental processes performed on a computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
:
modeling the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage
network as a graph with nodes and edges, the components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points being represented as at least one of edges and edges with an associated start or end node and the connecting points being represented as nodes; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably draw (on paper or simply within the mind) a model/graph of a network including nodes and edges, along with the remaining specified limitations.)
determining a state valid at an initialization time for each edge and
assigning said determined state to a respective edge as the first state instance; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine with/without the aid of pen and paper a state valid at a specified time for each edge of the model and then assign the determined state to a respective edge. Additionally, to “determine”, in this case, is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
determining a respective current state which is valid for a respective edge
of the graph from a time of a respective change to the network topology is determined for each edge of the graph in an event of the respective change to the network topology; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably determine with/without the aid of pen and paper a current state which is valid for a respective edge of the graph per the disclosed limitations. Additionally, to “determine”, in this case, is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and assigning each edge of the graph the respective state determined and currently valid from the time of the respective change to the network topology as a respective further state instance together with a timestamp which indicates the time of the respective change to the network topology. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation recites mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably perform the disclosed limitations with/without the aid of pen and paper. Note that the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
A computer-implemented method for modeling a network topology of at
least a subarea of a low-voltage network comprising components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points, the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network being changed by at least one of (i) switching on, over, or off components comprising lines and (ii) adding or removing components comprising at least one of operating equipment, consumers and energy generators or energy storage units, the method comprising: (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer and does no more than invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.)
storing and processing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network in a graph database; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer and does no more than invoke computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”)
and accessing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network by one of a network management system and a network monitoring system, the graph comprising a static network topology and a dynamic network topology. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole. Adding a final step of storing/accessing data does not add a meaningful limitation to the process for modeling a network topology.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process and/or insignificant extra-solution activity - See MPEP 2106.05 (f)/(g).
Also, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following relevant computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, etc.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites, wherein an assignment of respective further state instances with an associated timestamp is reduced to those edges of the graph whose respective current state was changed by the respective change to the network topology in the event of the respective change to the network topology. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, wherein each respective change to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network are combined with each other to form an event comprising an entirety of all state instances of edges in the graph which are attributed to a specific time. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation merely invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4, the method of claim 2, further recites, wherein each respective change to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network are combined with each other to form an event comprising an entirety of all state instances of edges in the graph which are attributed to a specific time. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation merely invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites, wherein a network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network which is valid for a specifiable time is derived based on the timestamps of the respective state instances assigned to the respective edges in the graph. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites, wherein a list of changes to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network for a specifiable period of time is determined based on the timestamps of the respective state instances assigned to the respective edges in the graph. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites, wherein an active state or a deactivated state is assigned to an edge as the respective state instance. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 further recites, wherein connectors of the respective edges to the nodes and state changes to the connectors or the respective edges are considered in the graph when the components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points are represented as at least one of (i) edges and (ii) edges with an associated start or end node. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 further recites, wherein a direction of an energy flow between the components and the associated connecting points in at least the subarea of the low-voltage network is considered when the components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points are represented as at least one of (i) edges and (ii) edges with an associated start or end node in the graph. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 further recites, wherein the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network is modeled based on network planning data. The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pappu, Satya Jayadev et al. "Identifying topology of low voltage distribution networks based on smart meter data." IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 9, no. 5 (2017): 5113-5122 (hereinafter referred to as “Pappu”), in view of Sharon et al. US Patent No. 9287713 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Sharon”), in further view of Fournier‐Viger, Philippe, Ganghuan He, Chao Cheng, Jiaxuan Li, Min Zhou, Jerry Chun‐Wei Lin, and Unil Yun. "A survey of pattern mining in dynamic graphs." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 10, no. 6 (2020): e1372 (hereinafter referred to as “Fournier-Viger”), and in further view of Rossi et al. US Pub. No. 20200162340 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Rossi”).
Regarding claim 1, Pappu discloses, A computer-implemented method for
modeling a network topology of at least a subarea of a low-voltage network ("a novel data driven approach to identify the underlying network topology for LV [i.e. low-voltage] distribution networks” Pappu [Pg.5113 Abstract]) comprising components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network (“The topology of a distribution network can be considered to be the connectivity between the meters installed at the substation, feeders, transformers, and consumer mains.” Pappu [Pg.5116 Col.1 Sec.III]. See Applicant’s disclosure Spec. [P.0014] for examples of components.) via connecting points, (“A graph can be constructed by assigning nodes [i.e. connecting points] to each of the meters and the connections between them can be represented as edges” Pappu [Pg.5116 Col.1 Sec.III])
modeling the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage
network as a graph with nodes and edges, (“A graph can be constructed by assigning nodes to each of the meters and the connections between them can be represented as edges” Pappu [Pg.5116 Col.1 Sec.III])
the components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points being represented as at least one of edges and edges with an associated start or end node and the connecting points being represented as nodes; (“Consider a graph of a power network having eight energy meters [i.e. connecting points] (denoted as nodes 1, 2, ... , 8), connected through seven power lines [i.e. components] (denoted as edges a, b, ... , g) as shown in Fig. 3” Pappu [Pg.5116 Col.2 Sec.C]. Power lines are interpreted as components per Applicant’s disclosure, “a low-voltage network with components (for example, consumers, energy feeders, energy generators, energy storage units and operating equipment, such as transformers, and / or lines)” Spec. [P.0014])
Pappu fails to specifically disclose the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network being changed by at least one of (i) switching on, over, or off components comprising lines and (ii) adding or removing components comprising at least one of operating equipment, consumers and energy generators or energy storage units, the method comprising: determining a state valid at an initialization time for each edge and assigning said determined state to a respective edge as the first state instance; determining a respective current state which is valid for a respective edge
of the graph from a time of a respective change to the network topology is determined for each edge of the graph in an event of the respective change to the network topology;
and assigning each edge of the graph the respective state determined and currently valid from the time of the respective change to the network topology as a respective further state instance together with a timestamp which indicates the time of the respective change to the network topology, storing and processing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network in a graph database; and accessing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network by one of a network management system and a network monitoring system, the graph comprising a static network topology and a dynamic network topology.
However, the analogous art of Sharon discloses, the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network being changed by at least one of (i) switching on, over, or off components comprising lines (“Different network topologies result from various combinations of open and closed switch devices.” Sharon [Col.10 Ln.56]) and (ii) adding or removing components (“Now consider the case wherein a distributed energy source (DER) such as photo-voltaic receptor is added to the second bus” Sharon [Col.9 Ln. 41-43]) comprising at least one of operating equipment, consumers and energy generators or energy storage units (see Pappu [Pg.5116 Col.1 Sec.III])
Pappu and Sharon are analogous art as they both relate to topology identification of distribution networks. Pappu [Pg.5113 Abstract] discloses “a novel data driven approach to identify the underlying network topology for LV distribution networks” and Sharon [Col.1 Ln.15-20] discloses “This invention relates generally to power distribution systems, and more particularly to methods, systems and computer readable media for identifying a network topology created by open and closed switching devices, based on historical data and on sparse real-time measurements in the network.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer-implemented method of Pappu to include the components disclosed by Sharon since “reliable and prompt detection of the switching device statuses is crucial for accurate state estimation” Sharon [Col.1 Ln.63-64]).
However, the Pappu-Sharon combination fails to specifically disclose determining a state valid at an initialization time for each edge and assigning said determined state to a respective edge as the first state instance, determining a respective current state which is valid for a respective edge of the graph from a time of a respective change to the network topology is determined for each edge of the graph in an event of the respective change to the network topology, and assigning each edge of the graph the respective state determined and currently valid from the time of the respective change to the network topology as a respective further state instance together with a timestamp which indicates the time of the respective change to the network topology, storing and processing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network in a graph database; and accessing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network by one of a network management system and a network monitoring system, the graph comprising a static network topology and a dynamic network topology.
On the other hand, analogous art of Fournier-Vigor discloses, determining a state valid at an initialization time for each edge and assigning said determined state to a respective edge as the first state instance; (“each edge is labeled [i.e. assigned] with a bit string (a sequence of 0s and 1s), which describes the edge's status [i.e. state] over time. For instance, an edge labeled as "010" means that this edge did not exist at time 1 [i.e. initialization time], appeared at time 2, and did not exist at time 3” Fournier-Viger [Pg.18 last para.])
determining a respective current state which is valid for a respective edge
of the graph from a time of a respective change to the network topology is determined for each edge of the graph in an event of the respective change to the network topology; (“each graph edge is annotated with a string that contains edge labels for each timestamp, rather than only 0s and 1s. An edge label is either a symbol (e.g. a, b and c) to describe an edge, or a special ε label indicating that an edge did not exist [i.e. respective current state] at the corresponding timestamp [i.e. time of respective change]. Before mining patterns, a union graph is created by combining the information of all timestamps [i.e. an event]. For instance, Fig. 9 a) shows a dynamic graph and Fig. 9 b) [see Fig.9 below] shows the corresponding union graph representation.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.21 P.2]. The union graph is interpreted to include an event of the respective change to the network topology due to Applicant’s disclosure, “an event ideally combines the entirety of all state changes to edges at the time of the respective change to the network topology.” Spec. [P.0017])
PNG
media_image1.png
359
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and assigning each edge of the graph the respective state determined and currently valid from the time of the respective change to the network topology as a respective further state instance together with a timestamp which indicates the time of the respective change to the network topology. (“each graph edge is annotated [i.e. assigned] with a string that contains edge labels for each timestamp, rather than only 0s and 1s. An edge label is either a symbol (e.g. a, b and c) to describe an edge, or a special ε label indicating that an edge did not exist [i.e. respective state] at the corresponding timestamp [i.e. time of respective change].” Fournier-Viger [Pg.21 P.2])
storing and processing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network in a graph database; (Fournier-Viger discloses mining patterns (i.e. processing the graph) in a “static graph database” [Pg.5 MINING PATTERNS IN A STATIC GRAPH DATABASE])
the graph comprising a static network topology and a dynamic network topology. (Fournier-Viger discloses static graph mining pattern techniques [Pg.12] and different types of static graphs [Pg.6 Figure 1] analogous to a static network topology. Fournier-Viger also discloses mining patterns in dynamic graphs [Pg.17] which are analogous to a dynamic network topology.)
Fournier-Viger is analogous art as it relates to the analysis of graph data, as does claimed invention. Fournier-Viger discloses “a detailed survey of techniques for mining interesting patterns in dynamic graphs” [Pg.1 Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the low voltage network topology teachings of Pappu-Sharon to include the graph analyzing techniques of Fournier-Viger in order “to identify patterns such as finding those having a high occurrence frequency and confidence, rarity, profitability, or a low-cost.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.2 P.1].
However, the Pappu-Sharon-Fournier-Viger combination fails to specifically disclose accessing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network by one of a network management system and a network monitoring system.
On the other hand, Rossi discloses accessing the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network by one of a network management system and a network monitoring system, (“device 502 includes communication devices 504 that enable wired and/or wireless communication of device data 506, such as the time-dependent interconnected data, the time-based graph, the node data, the graph data, the time-dependent embeddings, the feature values, the time-dependent network representation, as well as computer applications data and content that is transferred from one computing device to another, and/or synched between multiple computing devices Rossi [P.0068]. Device 502 is interpreted to also include a network monitoring system because “device 502 includes a processing system 510 that may be implemented at least partially in hardware, such as with any type of microprocessors, controllers, and the like that process executable instructions.” Rossi [P.0070] and Applicant’s disclosure “An active network management system of this kind, for example, specifically accesses generators, flexible consumers or even energy storage units in the network and controls them” Spec. [P.0009])
Rossi is analogous art as it relates to time-based graphs that include nodes and edges. Rossi discloses “relational data in graph form can be used to represent networks in many different types of domains [ ] Many of these types of networks are dynamic and the network entities that are represented as nodes in a graph continuously evolve over time” [P.0001]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pappu-Sharon-Fournier-Viger combination to incorporate timestamps, as disclosed by Rossi, because “The temporal information related to the changes over time in a dynamic network is an often overlooked, but important factor needed to accurately model, predict, and understand network data.” Rossi [P.0002].
Regarding claim 2, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, although Pappu fails to specifically disclose wherein an assignment of respective further state instances with an associated timestamp is reduced to those edges of the graph whose respective current state was changed by the respective change to the network topology in the event of the respective change to the network topology.
However, Fournier-Viger further discloses, wherein an assignment of respective further state instances with an associated timestamp is reduced to those edges of the graph whose respective current state was changed by the respective change to the network topology in the event of the respective change to the network topology. (Fournier-Viger Fig.9 c (see below) is interpreted to capture edge reduction as specified within claim due to the following disclosure, “Based on that graph representation (i.e. a union graph, see Fig.9 b below), Wackerseuther et al. designed a framework to discover dynamic frequent subgraphs where edge strings indicate label evolution. For instance, Fig. 9 c) shows a frequent subgraph found for a minimum support of 2. To discover such patterns, Wackerseuther et al. designed a generic framework that first applies a traditional FSM algorithm to find all frequent subgraphs in the static input graph, while ignoring edge strings. Then, the framework searches in each subgraph to find dynamic frequent subgraphs with edge strings. This is done by checking all embeddings (occurrences) of a subgraph to find frequently appearing edge substrings. To efficiently compare graph occurrences, a canonical edge order similar to the one used by gSpan2 was defined, and a suffix-tree is used to find the frequent longest substrings in linear time. Advantages of this approach are that it is efficient, it guarantees finding all the desired patterns, it relies on existing FSM algorithms, and it considers label evolution.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.20 P.3])
PNG
media_image1.png
359
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the low voltage network topology teachings of Pappu to include the graph reduction technique of Fournier-Viger in order to “efficiently compare graph occurrences” Fournier-Viger [Pg.21 Ln.1].
Regarding claim 3, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, although Pappu fails to specifically disclose wherein each respective change to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network are combined with each other to form an event comprising an entirety of all state instances of edges in the graph which are attributed to a specific time.
However, Fournier-Viger further discloses, wherein each respective change to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network are combined with each other to form an event comprising an entirety of all state instances of edges in the graph which are attributed to a specific time. (“each graph edge is annotated with a string that contains edge labels for each timestamp, rather than only 0s and 1s. An edge label is either a symbol (e.g. a, b and c) to describe an edge, or a special ε label indicating that an edge did not exist [i.e. respective current state] at the corresponding timestamp [i.e. time of respective change]. Before mining patterns, a union graph is created by combining the information of all timestamps. For instance, Fig. 9 a) shows a dynamic graph and Fig. 9 b) [see Fig.9 below] shows the corresponding union graph representation.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.21 P.2]. The union graph is interpreted to include an event of the respective change to the network topology due to Applicant’s disclosure, “an event ideally combines the entirety of all state changes to edges at the time of the respective change to the network topology.” Spec. [P.0017])
PNG
media_image1.png
359
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the low voltage network topology teachings of Pappu to include timestamp information combination, as Fournier-Viger discloses, in order to “identify subgraphs that are frequent in each snapshot of a dynamic graph.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.21 P.2].
Regarding claim 4, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 2, although Pappu fails to specifically disclose wherein each respective change to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network are combined with each other to form an event comprising an entirety of all state instances of edges in the graph which are attributed to a specific time.
However, Fournier-Viger further discloses, wherein each respective change to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network are combined with each other to form an event comprising an entirety of all state instances of edges in the graph which are attributed to a specific time. (“each graph edge is annotated with a string that contains edge labels for each timestamp, rather than only 0s and 1s. An edge label is either a symbol (e.g. a, b and c) to describe an edge, or a special ε label indicating that an edge did not exist [i.e. respective current state] at the corresponding timestamp [i.e. time of respective change]. Before mining patterns, a union graph is created by combining the information of all timestamps. For instance, Fig. 9 a) shows a dynamic graph and Fig. 9 b) [see Fig.9 below] shows the corresponding union graph representation” Fournier-Viger [Pg.21 P.2]. The union graph is interpreted to include an event of the respective change to the network topology due to Applicant’s disclosure, “an event ideally combines the entirety of all state changes to edges at the time of the respective change to the network topology.” Spec. [P.0017])
PNG
media_image1.png
359
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the low voltage network topology teachings of Pappu to include timestamp information combination, as Fournier-Viger discloses, in order to “identify subgraphs that are frequent in each snapshot of a dynamic graph.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.21 P.2].
Regarding claim 5, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, although Pappu fails to specifically disclose wherein a network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network which is valid for a specifiable time is derived based on the timestamps of the respective state instances assigned to the respective edges in the graph.
However, Rossi further discloses, wherein a network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network which is valid for a specifiable time is derived based on the timestamps of the respective state instances assigned to the respective edges in the graph. (“In CTDN [i.e. network topology] 122 (e.g., represented as the time-based graph 114), events denoted by edges occur over a time span [ ] In these networks, a valid temporal walk is denoted by a sequence of nodes connected by edges with non-decreasing timestamps. In other words, if each edge captures the time of contact between two entities” Rossi [P.0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pappu-Sharon-Fournier-Viger combination to incorporate timestamps, as disclosed by Rossi, in order “to accurately model, predict, and understand network data.” Rossi [P.0002].
Regarding claim 6, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, although Pappu fails to specifically disclose wherein a list of changes to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network for a specifiable period of time is determined based on the timestamps of the respective state instances assigned to the respective edges in the graph.
However, Fournier‐Viger further discloses, wherein a list of changes to the network topology of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network for a specifiable period of time is determined based on the timestamps of the respective state instances assigned to the respective edges in the graph. (“Let there be a graph sequence
d
=
G
(
1
)
,
G
(
2
)
,
.
.
.
,
G
(
m
)
containing
m
snapshots. Consider two graphs
G
(
j
)
and
G
(
j
+
1
)
from consecutive timestamps that have
m
j
differences. The differences [i.e. changes] between these two graphs can be described by a sequence of intermediate graphs
s
(
j
)
=
G
(
j
,
1
)
,
G
(
j
,
2
)
,
.
.
.
,
G
(
j
,
m
j
)
called intrastate sequence such that each intermediate graph has only a single difference with the preceding intermediate graph, and where
G
(
j
,
1
)
=
G
(
j
)
and
G
(
j
+
m
j
)
=
G
(
j
+
1
)
. Based on this idea, the sequence
d
can be represented as an interstate sequence defined as
s
(
1
)
,
G
(
2
)
,
.
.
.
,
G
(
m
-
1
)
” [Pg.30 P.2]. The sequence
d
is interpreted as a list of changes because “a graph sequence
d
=
G
(
1
)
,
G
(
2
)
,
.
.
.
,
G
(
m
)
is an ordered list of graphs” [Pg.29 P.2].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the low voltage network topology teachings of Pappu to include a list of changes, as determined by Fournier-Viger, in order to “compactly represent a graph and facilitate its analysis” Fournier-Viger [Pg.29 P.4].
Regarding claim 10, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, although Pappu fails to specifically disclose wherein the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network is modeled based on network planning data.
However, Fournier-Viger further discloses, wherein the graph of at least the subarea of the low-voltage network is modeled based on network planning data. (“the following sections discusses techniques for discovering patterns in a single dynamic graph, common to several dynamic graphs (a graph database), and in attributed graphs.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.3 P.2]. A graph database is interpreted to include planning data due to Applicants disclosure, “network planning data from a corresponding database” Spec. [P.0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the low voltage network topology teachings of Pappu to include the graph analyzing techniques of Fournier-Viger in order “to identify patterns such as finding those having a high occurrence frequency and confidence, rarity, profitability, or a low-cost.” Fournier-Viger [Pg.2 P.1].
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger”, in further view of Rossi, and in further view of Kan, Bowen et al. "Topology modeling and analysis of a power grid network using a graph database." International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 10, no. 1 (2017): 1355-1363 (hereinafter referred to as “Kan”).
Regarding claim 7, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose wherein an active state or a deactivated state is assigned to an edge as the respective state instance.
However, analogous art of Kan discloses, wherein an active state or a deactivated state is assigned to an edge as the respective state instance. (“In Fig. 6, orange nodes are energized [i.e. active state], and green ones are not energized [i.e. deactivated state]. Voltage for each bus is shown in the figure. Connections are either lines or transformers, with “IncomingSwitchOn” properties and “OutgoingSwitchOn” properties.” Kan [Pg.1358 Sec.4.3])
Kan is analogous art as it relates to topology modeling and analysis of a power grid network using a graph database. Kan [Pg.1355 Abstract] discloses “a new method for storing, modeling, and analyzing power grid data”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pappu-Sharon-Fournier-Viger-Rossi combination to incorporate respective state instances, as Kan discloses, in order to achieve efficient and effective “topology modeling and analysis using graph database for a power grid network” Kan [Pg.1355 Abstract].
Regarding claim 8, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, Pappu further discloses, when the components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points are represented as at least one of (i) edges and (ii) edges with an associated start or end node. (“The topology of a distribution network can be considered to be the connectivity between the meters installed at the substation, feeders, transformers, and consumer mains” Pappu [Pg.5116 Col.1 Sec.III], and “A graph can be constructed by assigning nodes [i.e. connecting points] to each of the meters and the connections between them can be represented as edges” Pappu [Pg.5116 Col.1 Sec.III].)
Pappu fails to specifically disclose wherein connectors of the respective edges to the nodes and state changes to the connectors or the respective edges are taken into account in the graph.
However, analogous art of Kan discloses wherein connectors of the respective edges to the nodes and state changes to the connectors or the respective edges are considered in the graph (“In Fig. 6 [i.e. the graph], orange nodes are energized [i.e. active state], and green ones are not energized [i.e. deactivated state]. Voltage for each bus is shown in the figure. Connections are either lines or transformers, with “IncomingSwitchOn” properties and “OutgoingSwitchOn” properties.” Kan [Pg.1358 Sec.4.3])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pappu-Sharon-Fournier-Viger-Rossi combination to consider connectors of the respective edges to the nodes and state changes to the connectors or the respective edges in the graph, as Kan discloses, in order to achieve efficient and effective “topology modeling and analysis using graph database for a power grid network” Kan [Pg.1355 Abstract].
Regarding claim 9, Pappu, in view of Sharon, in further view of Fournier-Viger, and in further view of Rossi disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose wherein a direction of an energy flow between the components and the associated connecting points in at least the subarea of the low-voltage network is considered when the components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points are represented as at least one of (i) edges and (ii) edges with an associated start or end node in the graph.
However, analogous art of Kan discloses, wherein a direction of an energy flow between the components and the associated connecting points in at least the subarea of the low-voltage network is considered when the components connected to at least the subarea of the low-voltage network via connecting points are represented as at least one of (i) edges and (ii) edges with an associated start or end node in the graph. (“In Fig. 6 [see below], orange nodes are energized, and green ones are not energized. Voltage for each bus is shown in the figure. Connections are either lines or transformers... the starting node is Bus1, the output energized nodes should be nodes {Bus4, Bus6, Bus7} [i.e. direction of energy flow]”) Kan [Pg.1358 Sec.4.3])
PNG
media_image2.png
331
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Pappu-Sharon-Fournier-Viger-Rossi combination to consider energy flow direction in the network, as Kan discloses, in order to achieve efficient and effective “topology modeling and analysis using graph database for a power grid network” Kan [Pg.1355 Abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dai, Jiangpeng, et al. "Analysis of distribution network outrage region based on graph database." 2016 China International Conference on Electricity Distribution (CICED). IEEE, 2016. “The paper proposes a new method based on graph database to analyse power network outage region. The connection between electrical equipment[s] is abstracted into vertexes connected by a certain edge.” [Abstract]
Soundararajan et al. (Using A Graph Database Of A Virtualization Infrastructure – US Pub. No US 20140365522 A1). “a computer-implemented method for providing management of a virtualization infrastructure [ ] A graph database of the virtualization infrastructure is accessed, the graph database including nodes associated with members of the virtualization infrastructure and edges associated with relationships of the members of the virtualization infrastructure, wherein the nodes and the relationships include types.” [Abstract]
Soundararajan et al. (Creation Of A Graph Database Of A Virtualization Infrastructure – US Patent No US 9460187 B2). “method for creating a graph database of a virtualization infrastructure, data defining entities and relationships of the entities of a virtualization infrastructure is received at a graph database” [Abstract]
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186