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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 202010934704.1, filed on September 8, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 23, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manson (US 2017/0346290 A1) (herein after Manson) in view of Bartlett et al (US 2015/0244171 A1) (herein after Bartlett).
Regarding Claim 1, Manson discloses, a method for detecting overloading of devices (Fig. 1, ¶ 7 methods for monitoring and controlling an electrical power system) for load transfer in an open-loop power grid (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 shedding of loads or generators to rebalance the electrical power system), comprising: constructing, based on attribute information and connection relationship of devices in the power grid (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 inertia of the system is determined by the combined properties of the electrically connected connects), a power supply tree graph corresponding to power transmission in the power grid (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 electrically connected connects that make up the electrical power system); determining a target device (Fig. 1, breakers 118a-d, 120-a-d), 124a-e) and a standby power supply (Fig. 1, generators 104a-e) adopted for the load transfer, wherein the target device is an abnormal device (Fig. 1, ¶ 40 that conditions necessitate load or generation shedding) in the power system; determining a node (Fig. 1, busses 112a-d) in the power supply tree graph corresponding to the target device; determining a sub-graph in downstream of the node as a target set (Fig. 1, ¶ 61 plurality of nodes, electrical island); and dividing the target set into one or more target subsets (Fig. 1, ¶ 61 identify a subset), based on connection relationship among nodes in the target set before the load transfer (Fig. 1, ¶ 60 IEDs detecting coinciding trigger events); for each of the target subsets, determining nodes in said target subset between which the parent-child relationship is reversed (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 determine which electrical nodes are electrically connected and which are electrically isolated. “connecting and isolating nodes reverses power flow which reverses parent child relationship of nodes”) due to the load transfer, and performing overload detection (Fig. 1, ¶ 44 decrease electrical load to eliminate the imbalance) on each device corresponding to one of the nodes or an edge on a path connecting the nodes, —
Manson fails to disclose, — and determining two nodes between which a direct parent-child relationship is generated from nonexistence due to the load transfer, and; performing overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge on a path connecting a parent node of the two nodes and a common parent node.
In analogous art, Bartlett discloses, — and determining two nodes between which a direct parent-child relationship is generated from nonexistence due to the load transfer (Fig. 4, ¶ 46 – 48 iteratively traverse each node to determine which nodes can or cannot be reached from new island to be analyzed may be identified at 418), and; performing overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge (Fig. 4, ¶ 49 implementation of load shedding schemes to balance generation and demand) on a path connecting a parent node of the two nodes and a common parent node (Fig. 3, node 301; “Fig 4 is a method performed on Fig 3, see ¶ 49”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manson by combining the method of determining inefficient loads on a network disclosed by Manson with a method of determining inefficient loads on a network comprising, determining two nodes between which a direct parent-child relationship is generated from nonexistence due to the load transfer, and performing overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge on a path connecting a parent node of the two nodes and a common parent node; taught by Bartlett for the benefit of reducing one or more loads to improve the stability of the network [Bartlett: ¶ 19 one or more loads may be shed to maintain a generator/ load balance and stability].
Regarding Claim 10, Manson in view of Bartlett disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Manson further discloses, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining an order of all transfer schemes (Fig. 1, ¶ 44 maintain high priority loads) in which devices are not overloaded due to the load transfer, based on an actual load rate of the devices after the load transfer (Fig. 1, ¶ 44 increase or decrease generation, or to decrease or decrease electrical load to eliminate the imbalance).
Claim(s) 2 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manson (US 2017/0346290 A1) (herein after Manson) in view of Bartlett et al (US 2015/0244171 A1) (herein after Bartlett), and further in view of Retana (US 2012/0195205 A1) (herein after Retana).
Regarding Claim 2, Manson in view of Bartlett disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Manson in view of Bartlett fail to disclose, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: simplifying the power supply tree graph.
In analogous art, Retana discloses, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: simplifying the power supply tree graph (Fig. 4, ¶ 55 determining which one-hop neighbors of a specific node are necessary and which are unnecessary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manson in view of Bartlett by combining the method of determining inefficient loads on a network disclosed by Manson in view of Bartlett with a method of determining inefficient loads on a network, further comprising: simplifying the power supply tree graph; taught by Retana for the benefit of minimizing a network topology while optimizing energy usage and maintaining a performance standard. [Retana: ¶ 14 determine minimal topologies. In particular embodiments, the algorithm not only optimizes energy usage in a network, but maintains a performance standard].
Regarding Claim 3, Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana disclose the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends on.
Retana further discloses, the method according to claim 2, wherein the simplifying the power supply tree graph comprises: removing each islanding node from the power supply tree graph (Fig. 4, ¶ 55 determining which one-hop neighbors of a specific node are necessary and which are unnecessary), and replacing each transition node and all edges connected to the transition node with one edge (Fig. 5, ¶ 61 lowest-cost paths (e.g., in terms of energy cost) between itself and each other edge node,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana by combining the method of determining inefficient loads on a network disclosed by Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana with a method of determining inefficient loads on a network, wherein the simplifying the power supply tree graph comprises: removing each islanding node from the power supply tree graph, and replacing each transition node and all edges connected to the transition node with one edge; taught by Retana for the benefit of minimizing a network topology while optimizing energy usage and maintaining a performance standard. [Retana: ¶ 14 determine minimal topologies. In particular embodiments, the algorithm not only optimizes energy usage in a network, but maintains a performance standard].
Regarding Claim 4, Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana disclose the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends on.
Retana further discloses, the method according to claim 3, wherein the transition node is a node connected to merely two edges (Fig. 1, ¶ 16 node 110 in network 100 may be directly connected with one or more other nodes), and the islanding node is a node not connected to any edge (Fig. 1, ¶ 59 node is powered down).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana by combining the method of determining inefficient loads on a network disclosed by Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana with a method of determining inefficient loads on a network, wherein the transition node is a node connected to merely two edges, and the islanding node is a node not connected to any edge; taught by Retana for the benefit of minimizing a network topology while optimizing energy usage and maintaining a performance standard. [Retana: ¶ 14 determine minimal topologies. In particular embodiments, the algorithm not only optimizes energy usage in a network, but maintains a performance standard].
Regarding Claim 5, Manson in view of Bartlett in disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Manson further discloses, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, in the power supply tree graph, a target node (Fig. 1, busses 112a-d) corresponding to the target device and a standby edge (Fig. 1, ¶ 37 Breakers 118a-d may be configured to connect or disconnect a respective electrical subsystem) corresponding to the standby power supply, and determining the common parent node (Fig. 1, ¶ 34 operate when electrically isolated from the other electrical nodes) shared by the target node and the standby edge; —
Manson in view of Bartlett fail to disclose, — and determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge that is not on a path connecting the common parent node and the edge corresponding to the standby power supply; and for each of the target subsets, determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge in said target subset in response to there being no two nodes in said target subset between which the parent-child relationship is changed due to the load transfer; determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge in said target subset in response to that the node or the edge is neither on the path connecting the common parent node and a parent node of the two nodes between which a parent-child relationship is generated from nonexistence due to the load transfer, nor on the path connecting the nodes between which the parent-child relationship is reversed due to the load transfer.
In analogous art, Retana discloses, — and determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge that is not on a path (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 – 30 determine which specific nodes are necessary and which are not, optimize the paths between the edge nodes) connecting the common parent node and the edge corresponding to the standby power supply; and for each of the target subsets, determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge in said target subset (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 – 30 determine which specific nodes are necessary and which are not, optimize the paths between the edge nodes) in response to there being no two nodes in said target subset between which the parent-child relationship is changed due to the load transfer (Fig. 1, ¶ 55 determining which one-hop neighbors in an active set of a specific node are necessary and which are unnecessary); determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge in said target subset (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 – 30 determine which specific nodes are necessary and which are not, optimize the paths between the edge nodes) in response to that the node or the edge is neither on the path connecting the common parent node and a parent node of the two nodes between which a parent-child relationship is generated from nonexistence due to the load transfer (Fig. 1, ¶ 55 determining which one-hop neighbors in an active set of a specific node are necessary and which are unnecessary), nor on the path connecting the nodes between which the parent-child relationship is reversed due to the load transfer (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 – 30 determine which specific nodes are necessary and which are not, optimize the paths between the edge nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana by combining the method of determining inefficient loads on a network disclosed by Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Retana with a method of determining inefficient loads on a network, and determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge that is not on a path connecting the common parent node and the edge corresponding to the standby power supply; and for each of the target subsets, determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge in said target subset in response to there being no two nodes in said target subset between which the parent-child relationship is changed due to the load transfer; determining not to perform overload detection on each device corresponding to a node or an edge in said target subset in response to that the node or the edge is neither on the path connecting the common parent node and a parent node of the two nodes between which a parent-child relationship is generated from nonexistence due to the load transfer, nor on the path connecting the nodes between which the parent-child relationship is reversed due to the load transfer; taught by Retana for the benefit of minimizing a network topology while optimizing energy usage and maintaining a performance standard. [Retana: ¶ 14 determine minimal topologies. In particular embodiments, the algorithm not only optimizes energy usage in a network, but maintains a performance standard].
Claim(s) 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manson (US 2017/0346290 A1) (herein after Manson) in view of Bartlett et al (US 2015/0244171 A1) (herein after Bartlett), and further in view of Verghese (US 7,844,438 B1) (herein after Verghese).
Regarding Claim 6, Manson in view of Bartlett disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Manson in view of Bartlett fail to disclose, the method according to claim 1, wherein, the overload detection is performed through power superposition.
In analogous art, Verghese discloses, the method according to claim 1, wherein, the overload detection is performed through power superposition (Fig. 1. Col. 9. Lin. 16 – 20 power and ground grid voltages calculated by linear superposition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manson in view of Bartlett by combining the method of determining inefficient loads on a network disclosed by Manson in view of Bartlett with a method of determining inefficient loads on a network, wherein the overload detection is performed through power superposition; taught by Verghese for the benefit of identifying failed nodes in a network with minimal computation overhead [Verghese: Col. 10, Ln. 1 – 8 dynamic power grid analysis with minimal computational overhead, determine the top instance contributors to the failed node voltage response].
Regarding Claim 7, Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Verghese disclose the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends on.
Verghese further discloses, the method according to claim 6, wherein the power superposition comprises: calculating a net output power or net input power of a device corresponding to a node in the power supply tree graph along a power flow direction (Fig. 1. Col. 2. Lin. 35 – 37 instance currents are determined, they are injected into the power grid network, and the resulting voltage response of the power grid network is calculated), and comparing the net output power or net input power with a rated transmission power of the device to determine whether the device is overloaded (Fig. 1. Col. 2. Lin. 37 – 40 peak to peak power grid voltage at each node in the network is then examined, 140, to determine if it exceeds a user-specified tolerance level); and calculating a sum of loads superposed on a device corresponding to an edge in the power supply tree graph (Fig. 1. Col. 2. Lin. 54 all grid nodes are examined) along the power flow direction, and comparing the sum with a tolerant capacity of the device to determine whether the device is overloaded (Fig. 1. Col. 2. Lin. 55 determines if all grid voltages are within the specified tolerance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Verghese by combining the method of determining inefficient loads on a network disclosed by Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Verghese with a method of determining inefficient loads on a network, wherein the power superposition comprises: calculating a net output power or net input power of a device corresponding to a node in the power supply tree graph along a power flow direction, and comparing the net output power or net input power with a rated transmission power of the device to determine whether the device is overloaded; and calculating a sum of loads superposed on a device corresponding to an edge in the power supply tree graph along the power flow direction, and comparing the sum with a tolerant capacity of the device to determine whether the device is overloaded; taught by Verghese for the benefit of identifying failed nodes in a network with minimal computation overhead [Verghese: Col. 10, Ln. 1 – 8 dynamic power grid analysis with minimal computational overhead, determine the top instance contributors to the failed node voltage response].
Regarding Claim 8, Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Verghese disclose the limitations of claim 7, which this claim depends on.
Manson further discloses, the method according to claim 7, wherein each node in the power supply tree graph represents a device which is not capable of being switched between on and off (Fig. 1, busses 112a-d) in the power system.
Regarding Claim 9, Manson in view of Bartlett in view of Verghese disclose the limitations of claim 7, which this claim depends on.
Manson further discloses, the method according to claim 7, wherein each edge in the power supply tree graph represents a device which is capable of being switched between on and off (Fig. 1, breakers 118a-d, 120-a-d) in the power system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GU et al (US 2020/0212710 A1) discloses, a method for detecting overloading of devices for load transfer in an open-loop power grid (Fig. 1, ¶ 50 a method for predicting an operation state of a power distribution network with DGs based on scene analysis).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO whose telephone number is (469)295-9276. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 A to 5:00 P CT.
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, EMAN ALFAKAWI can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 1/9/2026