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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 11/11/2025, are accepted and
appreciated by the examiner. Claims 1-3, 6-11,14-15 are pending. Examiner agrees with Applicant that the amended claim limitations do not introduce new matter, with support found in the specification (date: 03/16/2023). Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 16 have been cancelled. Examiner notes matter from cancelled claims 4-5 and 12-13 has been at least partially incorporated into Claims 1 and 9 as currently amended, respectively. Claim 8 has been amended to include language not found in claims as previously presented, with matter supported by the specification in at least [0040] and [0155].
Rationale for interpretation of Claim 8 using U.S.C. 112(f) guidance has been addressed with amended claim language to include the necessary structure for carrying out the claimed process.
Rejections of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to Claim 8.
Rejection of Claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 , Examiner has carefully reviewed and fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, with regard to evaluation of Claims 1- 16 (as previously presented) under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B , Examiner maintains limitations as evaluated do not contain matter which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception of Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concept. Moreover, claims as currently amended present matter that has been evaluated with the scrutiny of Step 2A, Prongs 1 and 2, and Step 2B, such that Examiner maintains rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. A detailed evaluation is presented below. In response to Applicant’s argument regarding evaluation under Step 2A (practical application) and 2B (additional elements amounting to signification more), Examiner is directed to guidance found in MPEP, 2106.04, with discussion regarding preemption. Applicant’s argument (Remarks, pg. 6), citing “elements in the amended claim I to significantly more due to its unique way of constructing the distributed fault location equation sets to determine the actual fault position” have been thoughtfully considered. However, as noted in MPEP, preemption is not a standalone test for patent eligibility. Preemption concerns have been addressed by the examiner through the application of the two-step framework. Applicant’s argument of uniqueness of the abstract idea beyond the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter, namely a mathematical concept. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp stated that “Synopsys equates the inventive concept inquiry with novelty and contends that the Asserted Claims contain an inventive concept because they were not shown to have been anticipated by (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious over (35 U.S.C. § 103) the prior art. See Appellant's Opening Br. 43 (“[T]he district court ignored the fact that the methods in the asserted claims of the Gregory patents were entirely novel solutions and could not be found anywhere in the prior art.”). That position misstates the law. It is true that “the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the § 102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap. (Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1304). But, a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a §101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.” Therefore a specific or unique abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. Examiner maintains rejection under U.S.C. §101 as detailed below.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 over prior art, Examiner has carefully reviewed Applicant’s concerns regarding rationale for obviousness based on reference combinations previously cited. 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, Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the combination of the references cited would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in developing a method for determination of a fault location in an electrical network.
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s arguments in stepping through criteria to rule out prior art used in the previous office action, particularly in providing detailed thought regarding inventive concept, and has used this information to inform further examination of Applicant’s invention in consideration of existing prior in light of submitted amendments. In view of new grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C §103, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, arguments are not persuasive, with detailed response to arguments included below.
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 1-3, 6-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fall into statutory categories as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101. (See MPEP § 2106.03)
Specifically independent Claim 1 recites:
“method for locating a ring power network fault…expanding in each ring line segment with an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems…acquiring monitoring point coordinate information and wavehead arrival time information …acquiring assumed fault point information…acquiring a traveling wave propagation speed, constructing a plurality of distributed fault location equation sets …determining an actual fault position according to a solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation…constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets…constructing a fault location default equation set…constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets” (Emphasis added for discussion)
Claim 1 is considered to be in a statutory category: process (“method”) using Step one of eligibility analysis. (MPEP § 2106.03). Evaluation under Step 2A, Prong One, and applying broadest reasonable interpretation, reveals the limitation recites a judicial exception of abstract idea in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping. (See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.)
Examiner points to text emphasized in bold above: locating, expanding, construct, constructing, determining. These terms represent explicit mathematical calculations, each describing a mathematical operation based on data gathering, which produces a quantitative or qualitative result, included in the claim limitation as emphasized above in italics. This interpretation is supported with evaluation of spec qualitatively in, for example, [0006], [p0034]. [0043], and quantitatively (using variables) specifically as a mathematical expression in [0064]-[0068], where, for example, the term “expand” for a given segment coordinate is shown as a linear combination of other segments in the ring network. Thus the concept of “expanding” of a ring network structure corresponds to developing mathematical expressions representing each segment in terms of other variables in the system. Likewise, the term “constructing” refers to the process of mathematical construction of the linear combination, supported in specification [0006], reciting “construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems”, interpreted as a mathematical concept of identifying coordinate points relative to a selected coordinate origin, and it [0010], reciting “Constructing a plurality of distributed fault location equation sets”. Examiner interprets this as an explicit indication that “construct” refers to forming mathematical expressions from variables and/or data. Similar interpretation of the term “determining”, which points to additional mathematical calculation activity, as indicated in the claim language.
Claim limitation language with the terms as described above is interpreted as nothing more than a series of mathematical calculations using input data. This interpretation and conclusion is supported by further review of the specification as noted, where the terms are used in reciting the method involving mathematical calculations to arrive at a numerical result.
In further evaluation of eligibility, Step 2A, Prong two was applied, with
consideration as to whether the limitations of Claim 1 recite additional elements
that may integrate the judicial exception into practical application. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)) Specifically, Examiner notes the following additional elements in Claim 1 as emphasized above using underline, including “acquiring” various types of information to be used in the mathematical processes as noted in bold text. Examiner considers additional element of “acquire” as referring to gathering of numerical values for use in mathematical operations, and is interpreted to be insignificant extra solution activity. These terms are interpreted as generally known or mere data gathering, necessary to provide numerical values based on measuring, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art, for use in recited mathematical operations related to the calculations recited above. This interpretation is supported in further review of the specification, as noted above. The acquisition of data by measuring, intended to be used in the cited mathematical concept is not meaningful because this represents nothing more than a necessary precursor required to carry out the described mathematical calculations. (see MPEP 2106.05(g), 2106.05(f)) Further, location and arrangement of acquiring measurements necessary as input data for mathematical calculations, for example the location of monitoring points, simply recite field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Other underline terms, including “ring line segment” and “ring power network” simply denote field of use. Location and arrangement of acquiring numerical values necessary as input data for mathematical calculations, for example the location of measurement equipment, simply recite field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well known, routine and conventional as evidenced by in the relevant art based on the prior art of record cited herein, including, for example: DZIENIS (US 11467200 B2), MUZZAMMEL, et al., GUZMAN-CASILLAS (US 20180210060 A1), and XU (CN-112946424-A), among others. Accordingly, the identified additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because claim limitation claims only a numerical result in the form of a coordinate pair.
Similarly, independent Claim 8 is considered to be in a statutory category: Machine (or “Manufacture”) using Step one of eligibility analysis. (MPEP § 2106.03). Evaluation under Step 2A, Prong One, and applying broadest reasonable interpretation, reveals the limitation recites a judicial exception of abstract idea in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping, as described above. As above, further evaluation of eligibility was considered using Step 2A, Prong two, with consideration as to whether the limitations of Claim 8 recite additional elements that may integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Examiner finds, as for Claim 1, additional elements are found regarding acquiring data, again “acquire” as referring to gathering of numerical values for use in mathematical operations, and is interpreted to be insignificant extra solution activity.
Evaluation of independent claim 9 as currently amended reveals the limitation is considered to be in a statutory category: Machine (or “Manufacture”) using Step One of eligibility analysis. (MPEP § 2106.03). Evaluation under Step 2A, Prong One, and applying broadest reasonable interpretation, reveals the limitation recites a judicial exception of abstract idea in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping, with similar reasoning and rationale as applied to Claim 1. Evaluation, as above under Step 2A, Prong two, reveals that Claim 9, as for claim 1, includes additional elements related to acquiring numerical data for performing the mathematical functions, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well known, routine and conventional as evidenced by in the relevant art based on the prior art of record cited herein, as cited above.
Further, the examiner does not view limitations of Claims 1, 8, or 9 as improving the functioning of a computer, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), nor effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). The limit does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
In consideration of dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, with dependency to Claim 1; and Claims 10-11, 14-15, with dependency on Claim 9, Examiner finds additional elements, including limitations reciting additional extra-solution, data-gathering (Claims 2,3,7) or additional mathematical calculations (Claim 6, 4). However, language recited in these dependent claims is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, or provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea as recited in independent Claims 1 and 9. When analyzed independently or in combination, dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, 10-11 and 14-15 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) therein represent additional elements that describe insignificant extra solution activity, additional mathematical calculations, instructions or definitions for calculations, and/or numerical data to be used according to the recitation of the abstract ideas as discussed above for independent Claims 1 and 9.
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.
Examiner notes application of guidance found in MPEP 2141 in determination
of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. Specifically, factual inquiry steps described in
2141 (II): “An invention that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the relevant time is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.103(a). As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, the framework for the objective analysis for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is stated in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries.” Further, the following steps for factual inquiries were used in evaluation of prior art used for obviousness rejection:
(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
art; and
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DZIENIS (US 11467200 B2) in view of MUZZAMMEL (Muzzamel, et al., “MT–HVdc Systems Fault Classification and Location Methods Based on Traveling and Non-Traveling Waves—A Comprehensive Review”, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4760), and further in view of and further in view of WANG (Wang, et al., "Overdetermined Equation Based Fault Location Avoiding Influence of Traveling Wave Velocity," 2020 IEEE 3rd Student Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (SCEMS), Jinan, China, 2020, pp. 486-490).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently amended) DZIENIS (US 11467200 B2)
A method for locating a ring power network fault,
(DZIENIS is in same technical field, Abstract: “Method and device for determining a fault location in an electric power distribution network”, and FIG. 2 with Col6,L41: “FIG. 2 shows a schematic example of a power distribution network having a ring-shaped topology”)
comprising: expanding in each ring line segment
(DZIENIS teaches expansion of line segments by representation of each segment of structure in terms of other segments, Col12,L33: “following quantities are used to describe the segments of the main strand between measurement points A and B”, Examiner notes the referenced text is followed by a non-limiting numerical example.)
wherein the each ring line segment is a line segment between two adjacent monitoring point positions;
(DZIENIS teaches line segments defined between monitoring points, FIG. 2 with COL7L22: “example of an electric power distribution network 20 that has a ring-shaped topology…has a main strand 11 and multiple branches 12”; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language “segment” to be analogous to reference term “branches”, as indicated by connections, as in reference FIG. 2, “12”; DZIENIS teaches monitoring points, FIG 2 with COL7,L25: “to locate a fault in the distribution network 20, high-frequency current and/or voltage signals are acquired at measurement points 13a and 13b”; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language “monitoring points” to be analogous to reference use of term “measurements points 13a and 13b”)
However DZIENIS is silent to the language of:
[expanding ring line segment] with an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct plurality of reference coordinate systems,
constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions;
constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, to, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed.
Nevertheless, MUZZAMMEL teaches:
[expanding ring line segment] with an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems,
(MUZZAMEL is in same technical field, abstract: “critically reviews traveling and non-travelling wave methods of classification and location of dc faults in multi-terminal HVdc transmission systems”; Examiner notes reference is a review paper with general discussion of methods using traveling waves for determination of multiple fault points locations, specifically P43§21L: “distance between sensing terminal and the fault point is calculated with the help of propagation time and velocity of TWs”; Examiner notes reference term “TWs” refers to “traveling waves”; MUZZAMMEL teaches determination of distance from VSC Station, Pg7 equation (8), where distance is shown as relative to VSC, and where VSC is on the main feeder line, analogous to “trunk line”, serving as the reference point for determining distance, analogous to limitation of “origin”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DZIENIS to include an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems, such as that of MUZZAMMEL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify DZIENIS to include an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems, as taught by MUZZAMMEL because it would be understood as an efficient way to significantly enhance the accuracy and reliability of a fault detection method for a complex network system. Using a non-fixed reference point would allow a variation in perspective for evaluation of system behavior, making faculty localization process more robust. One of ordinary skill would understand this as an obvious combination with the traveling wave detection method disclosed by DZIENIS.
However, DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMEL and taught above, is silent to the language of:
constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions;
constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, to, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed.
Nevertheless, WANG teaches:
constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions;
(WANG is in same technical field, Abstract: “presents a two-terminal traveling wave fault location method for transmission…proposed method can effectively eliminate the influence of wave velocity to improve the fault location precision.”; and P486, Col2: “to effectively upgrade the robustness of the travelling wave fault location to eliminate the impact of the wave speed, this paper proposes a two-terminal travelling wave fault location algorithm”; WANG teaches fault location equation set, Pg. 488, (3) and (4).; .; Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argument (Remarks, P, 21) concerning whether WANG properly addresses “when some measured times are missing” and respectfully disagrees, since WANG recites a method wherein only two time points are needed, such that in a system where there are multiple monitoring points, any two measurements of wavehead arrival (where a reflection is interpreted to be analogous to “arrival”) can be used for determination of fault location. Examiner asserts the method of WANG, founded in single-ended fault location scheme does not require or use multiple station arrival time data for determination of fault location. Examiner includes several references cited by WANG relevant to this concept below. )
constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(WANG teaches same equation set using traveling wave method, using only two points of time data, Pg4817, Col1, II. Basic Theory, Equation (1); Examiner notes algebraic manipulation of WANG Eq (1) yields claimed equation, namely, change in position equal to time difference multiplied with wavespeed. Examiner acknowledges Applicant arguments regarding wavespeed, and points to WANG teaching possibility of different wavespeed along any segment, Pg 487, Col2, “If the wave velocity is different from the true value by [Symbol font/0x44]v, the measurement error could be calculated as follow:” [Equation (2)]; Examiner points as before to FIG. 3, and p478 Equation (3) and (4), “using the above-mentioned measured time information, an overdetermined equation set for two-terminal travelling wave fault location can be formed. In (4), an overdetermined equation system with d and v as unknown quantities is formed”)
wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, to, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed.
(As above, WANG teaches this limitation concept, namely an assumed fault location using a modified single-end approach, Pg. 487., with Equations (1), (3) and (4).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMMEL as taught above, to include the steps of constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions; constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set as shown above, wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, to, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed, such as that of WANG.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMMEL, and as taught above, to include the steps and equation sets as described above, as taught by WANG because it would be understood as a benefit to achieving the goal of a fault location by using value of a single-ended theoretical approach to address a situation where measured data may not have been received or is missing. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would recognize the equations as claimed are recited by DZIENIS, but are not explicitly noted as a “default set”, and DZIENIS does not account for the possibility of missing arrival time data, are analogous to those taught by WANG, wherein there is an explicit suggestion that multiple-point arrival time data is not required to form a robust set of equations that can be used for determination of a faulty location with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would see the logic of leveraging partial data for an accurate determination of fault location. Combining the method taught by WANG with the method and system as disclosed by DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMMEL, would be understood by one of ordinary skill as a way to result in a more reliable and efficient and provide a method that allows for the case of missing wavehead arrival time data in the case of multiple monitoring points.
With respect to Claim 2, DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
(References above, applied to Claim 1.)
DZIENIS further teaches:
wherein the assumed fault section comprises a first assumed fault section, each of the reference coordinate system comprises a first reference coordinate system, the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets comprise a first distributed fault location equation set,
(DZIENIS teaches estimation of fault location based on timing and position, as discussed above, see FIG. 8 and COL10,L28; DZIENIS teaches set of equations for finding fault location starting in Col9,L6, as discussed above.)
wherein the first distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the first reference coordinate system,
(DZIENIS teaches equations for finding fault location starting in Col9,L6, as above, where equations include measurements of wave arrival time from measurement points, and wavespeed, given by vo.)
and taking the first assumed fault position as the actual fault position if the first assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section.
(DZIENIS teaches consideration of second fault position, see Col11,L30: “step 39 (cf. FIG. 3), the first and the second fault location value are used to check whether the fault location is located on the main strand or on one of the branches. This is explained in more detail with reference to FIG. 4, which illustrates a detailed view of step 39”)
With respect to Claim 3, DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The method according to claim 2, (References above, applied to Claim 1)
DZIENIS further teaches:
wherein the assumed fault section further comprises a second assumed fault section, the reference coordinate system further comprises a second reference coordinate system, the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets further comprise a second distributed fault location equation set
(DZIENIS teaches use of a second fault section, Col11,L30: “step 39 (cf. FIG. 3), the first and the second fault location value are used to check whether the fault location is located on the main strand or on one of the branches…explained in more detail with reference to FIG. 4, which illustrates a detailed view of step 39”)
wherein the second distributed fault location equation is determined according to the second assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the first reference coordinate system,
(As above, DZIENIS teaches a second fault location based on wave arrival time relative to first monitoring point, Pg487.)
wherein the method further comprises: solving a second distributed fault location equation set to determine a second assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section;
(See as above, DZIENIS defines segments between monitoring points for evaluation of fault location in each segment, See FIG. 2, for example. And discussion in COL10,L30)
taking the second assumed fault position as the actual fault position
if the second assumed fault position is in the second assumed fault section;
(DZIENIS teaches consideration of second fault position, Col11,L30: “step 39 (cf. FIG. 3), the first and the second fault location value are used to check whether the fault location is located on the main strand or on one of the branches. This is explained in more detail with reference to FIG. 4, which illustrates a detailed view of step 39”)
However, DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, is silent to the language of:
and a third distributed fault location equation set,
wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system,
OR solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine
a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section;
and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault
position if the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section.
Nevertheless, MUZZAMMEL further teaches:
and a third distributed fault location equation set,
(MUZZAMMEL teaches consideration of third segment to determine fault location, P9, Section5.1.3. Case 3)
wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system,
(MUZZAMMEL teaches third fault location equation set, Pg.8, Section 5.1, examples 5.1.1-.3, where all fault location equations are expressed in terms other segments, as shown in FIG.4, for example, 5.1.3. Case 3: “Suppose that a fault F3 occurs in the third OH line segment of length L3 as shown in Figure 4. If this fault occurs at t = 0, then the arrival times of the traveling waves at terminal T1 and T2 are:
PNG
media_image2.png
130
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where vi refer to wave speeds in various segments, and solution for fault location is shown in Equation (20)”)
OR solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine
a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section;
(MUZZAMMEL teaches a solution to the third case, as described above, P9, Section 5.1.3, equations (17), (18), (19), and (20), “Based on the distance of fault location from the beginning/start of respective segment, particular faulty segment is identified via algorithm given in subsequent section”; Examiner notes that the above set of equations with solutions also teaches this claim limitation, which is presented in “OR” form with the paired limitation as taught above by DZIENIS, such that the combination of DZIENIS with MUZZAMMEL teaches both limitations presented in OR form.)
and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault
position if the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section.
(MUZZAMMEL teaches locating third fault position, FIG. 5, “Faulty segment identification algorithm”, Equation (22), “identifying fault in segment 3 based on analysis of segment 1 and 2”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG as taught above, to include and a third distributed fault location equation set, and solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section; wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system, and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault position if the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section, such as that further disclosed by MUZZAMMEL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG as taught above, to include and a third distributed fault location equation set, and solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section; wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system, and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault position if the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section, as further taught by MUZZAMMEL because it would be understood as logical method to use in a system with multiple monitoring points, and would be seen as an efficient way to significantly enhance the accuracy and reliability of a fault detection method for a complex network system. Further combining the disclosure of MUZZAMMEL with that of DZIENIS would be viewed by one of ordinary skill as an obvious way to improve the traveling wave fault localization technique.
With respect to Claim 6, DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
(References above, applied to Claim 1.)
DZIENIS further teaches: wherein any of the monitoring point positions is arranged at one or more of a
connection of a bus bar and a line, a connection of a cable and an overhead line of different line types, a connection of two lines with different line diameters, and a section with a line length being greater than a preset length and with a needed accurate location,
(DZIENIS teaches method directed to monitoring along bus bar and/or line, and standard electrical connection types, FIG. 9, and Col12,L17: “Measurement point A on the main strand downstream of the first tap (seen from the infeed) is selected as measurement location. If further taps are located on the busbar at measurement location A”)
wherein any of the monitoring point positions is arranged with a traveling wavehead monitoring sensor, the traveling wavehead monitoring sensor is configured to determine a wavehead arrival time of a corresponding monitoring point, and the traveling wavehead monitoring sensor comprises a current type and a voltage type.
(DZIENIS teaches monitoring arrival times at monitoring points, Col1,L56: “methods are known that use measured values from only one of the ends of the line (single-sided fault location) or measured values from both ends of the line (two-sided fault location).” and Col6,L3: “methods are known that use measured values from only one of the ends of the line (single-sided fault location) or measured values from both ends of the line (two-sided fault location)”; Col7.L15: “Times at which traveling waves arrive at both measurement points 13a, 13b are thereby determined at said measurement points.”; and see Col1,L42: “fault location at which the fault is located on a line may be demarcated through analysis of measured variables, for example currents and voltages, acquired during the occurrence of the fault.”)
With respect to Claim 7 (Currently amended), DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
(References above, applied to Claim 1.)
However, DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, is silent to the language of:
wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets [[all]] falls into an assumed fault section, wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method.
Nevertheless, MUZZAMEL, further teaches:
wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets [[all]] falls into an assumed fault section,
(MUZZAMEL teaches predicting fault location Pg11: “”frequency of traveling wave is measured to predict and estimate fault location and distance from VSC station”; and teaches use of statistical analysis to classify signals, Pg15, 6.3.2. :” Auto-correlation of matrix”; and use of Pearson correlation Pg16, 7.: “Pearson correlation coefficient is calculated to find similarity between samples of the input feature and existing feature. Then this similarity is used to estimate the fault location [88]”; Examiner notes reference [88 – Hatch, et al.] cited by MUZZAMMEL discloses additional optimization techniques, and is included below as pertinent art.
wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method.
(MUZZAMEL teaches use of weighted averages for fault location, Pg16: “Fault location is estimated by the weighted average of the pointed values obtained from the k most similar patterns…correlation is converted to positive value distance matrix and expressed as
PNG
media_image3.png
41
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where r(x, y) is the Pearson correlation coefficient of signals x and y and r(x, y) ∈ [−1,+1]. ” ; and Pg17, FIG. 9, last flow chart box.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets all falls into an assumed fault section, and to include wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method, such as that further disclosed by MUZZAMMEL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets all falls into an assumed fault section, and to include wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method, as further taught by MUZZAMMEL because it would be understood as an obvious and advantageous way to improve the method of DZIENIS to pinpoint a fault location in a system. Combining system data as disclosed by DZIENIS using the statistical methods taught by MUZZAMEL, and using multiple mathematical models (equation sets) the accuracy of fault location determination could be refined.
With respect to 9 (Currently amended), DZIENIS teaches:
An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program stored in the memory, implements the following steps:
(DZIENIS teaches standard computational components for carrying out method, Col5,L51: “central data processing device may be for example a computer in a control center of the power distribution network…provision may however also be made for the device to be a cloud data processing device…method may thus be executed on a cloud platform, and the fault location may be offered as a cloud service”: Examiner asserts claim limitation language of “a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor” is analogous to reference “a computer”, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.)
expanding in each ring line segment wherein the each ring line segment is a line segment between two adjacent monitoring point positions;
(As above, parallel limitation Claim 1, DZIENIS teaches expansion method, Col12, L33; DZIENIS teaches line segments defined between monitoring points, FIG. 2 with COL7L22: “example of an electric power distribution network 20 that has a ring-shaped topology…has a main strand 11 and multiple branches 12”; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language “segment” to be analogous to reference term “branches”, as indicated by connections, as in reference FIG. 2, “12”; DZIENIS teaches monitoring points, FIG 2 with COL7,L25: “to locate a fault in the distribution network 20, high-frequency current and/or voltage signals are acquired at measurement points 13a and 13b”;)
acquiring monitoring point coordinate information and wavehead arrival time information of each of the monitoring point positions in coordinate system
(DZIENIS teaches location of measurement points, as discussed above, and arrival time acquisition at measurement points, as above, COL7, L26 and COL7,L39; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language “wavehead arrival time” to be analogous to reference term “arrival of traveling waves”; DZIENIS teaches reference frame, FIG. 2.)
acquiring assumed fault point information, wherein the assumed fault point information comprises an assumed fault point coordinate, assumed occurrence fault time and an assumed fault section;
(Above, parallel limitation Claim 1, DZIENIS teaches estimation of fault location based on timing and position, beginning COL10,L28; Examiner again notes interpretation of claim limitation language of “assumed” to be analogous to reference term “estimated” to mean a predicted location of a fault based on some preliminary information and evaluative process. Examiner notes disclosure method is based on and relative to known locations of measurement stations.)
acquiring a traveling wave propagation speed;
(Above, parallel limitation Claim 1, DZIENIS teaches method of “Travelling Wave Fault Location” in Col3C40, and determining wave speed in Col3L47 and Col4,L3; also Col9,L63 and Col10,L7.)
constructing a plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault point information and the traveling wave propagation speed in coordinate system; and
(Above, parallel limitation, Claim 1, DZIENIS teaches equations for finding fault location starting in Col9,L6; Equations include measurements of wave arrival time from measurement points, and wavespeed, vo.)
determining an actual fault position according to a solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section.,_
(Above, parallel limitation, Claim 1, DZIENIS teaches determination of fault location, Col6,L8 and Col7.L43; Examiner notes DZIENIS uses examples with only two measurement points, but use of two-end fault location technique would be known and understood by one of ordinary skill as applicable a network with multiple measuring points, as suggested, FIG. 2).
However, DZIENIS is silent to the language of:
with an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems,
wherein the constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault point information and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems comprises: constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions;
constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set is as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
157
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, t0, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed.
Nevertheless, MUZZAMMEL teaches:
with an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems,
(As above parallel limitation, Claim 1, MUZZAMEL teaches determination of distance from VSC Station, Pg7 equation (8), where distance is shown as relative to VSC, and where VSC is on the main feeder line, analogous to “trunk line”, serving as the reference point for determining distance, analogous to limitation of “origin”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DZIENIS to include an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems, such as that of MUZZAMMEL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify DZIENIS to include an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems, as taught by MUZZAMMEL because it would be understood as an efficient way to significantly enhance the accuracy and reliability of a fault detection method for a complex network system. Using a non-fixed reference point would allow a variation in perspective for evaluation of system behavior, making faculty localization process more robust. One of ordinary skill would understand this as an obvious combination with the traveling wave detection method disclosed by DZIENIS.
However, DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMEL and taught above, is silent to the language of:
wherein the constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault point information and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems comprises: constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions;
constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set is as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
157
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, t0, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed.
Nevertheless, WANG teaches
wherein the constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault point information and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems comprises: constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions;
(Above, parallel limitation Claim 1; WANG teaches fault location equation set, Pg. 488, (3) and (4).; Examiner notes Applicant argument regarding missing arrival time data, as discussed above.)
constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set is as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
157
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, t0, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed.
(As above, parallel limitation Claim 1; WANG teaches same equation set using only two points of time data, Pg4817, Col1, II. Basic Theory, Equation (1); Examiner notes algebraic manipulation of WANG Eq (1) yields claimed equation, namely, change in position equal to time difference multiplied with wavespeed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMMEL as taught above, to include the steps of constructing a fault location default equation set if the wavehead arrival time information is missing at some of the monitoring point positions; constructing the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the fault location default system equation set, and the acquired monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault section and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems, wherein the fault location default system equation set as shown above, wherein x is the assumed fault point coordinate, tis the assumed fault occurrence time, xo, x1, ..., xi-n is the monitoring point coordinate information, to, t1, ..., ti-n is the wavehead arrival time information, n is a number of the monitoring point positions without acquiring the wavehead arrival time information, and vis the traveling wave propagation speed, such as that of WANG.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMMEL, and as taught above, to include the steps and equation sets as described above, as taught by WANG because it would be understood as a benefit to achieving the goal of a fault location by using value of a single-ended theoretical approach to address a situation where measured data may not have been received or is missing. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would recognize the equations as claimed are recited by DZIENIS, but are not explicitly noted as a “default set”, and DZIENIS does not account for the possibility of missing arrival time data, are analogous to those taught by WANG, wherein there is an explicit suggestion that multiple-point arrival time data is not required to form a robust set of equations that can be used for determination of a faulty location with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would see the logic of leveraging partial data for an accurate determination of fault location. Combining the method taught by WANG with the method and system as disclosed by DZIENIS, as modified by MUZZAMMEL, would be understood by one of ordinary skill as a way to result in a more reliable and efficient and provide a method that allows for the case of missing wavehead arrival time data in the case of multiple monitoring points.
With respect to Claim 10, DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The electronic device according to claim 9,
(References above, applied to Claim 9.)
DZIENIS further teaches:
wherein the assumed fault section comprises a first assumed fault section, each of the reference coordinate system comprises a first reference coordinate system, the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets comprise a first distributed fault location equation set,
(Above, parallel limitation in Claim 2; DZIENIS teaches estimation of fault location based on timing and position, FIG. 8 and COL10,L28; DZIENIS teaches set of equations for finding fault location starting in Col9,L6, as discussed above.)
wherein the first distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the first reference coordinate system,
(Above, parallel limitation, Claim 1; DZIENIS teaches equations for finding fault location Col9,L6, where equations include measurements of wave arrival time from measurement points, and wavespeed, given by vo.)
wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: solving the first distributed fault location equation set to determine a first assumed fault position;
(DZIENIS teaches determination of fault position based on equations as discussed above, see Col9,L23: “Combining the abovementioned two equations gives the first fault location value”; Examiner again notes DZIENIS discloses examples with only two measurement points, but use of two-sided fault location technique would be understood by one of ordinary skill as applicable a network with multiple measuring points, as suggested in FIG. 2; DZIENIS further teaches solution for fault location, Col10,L35.)
and taking the first assumed fault position as the actual fault position if the first assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section.
(DZIENIS teaches estimation of fault location based on timing and position, COL10,L30: “shown in FIG. 8…estimate is plausible only if the actual fault location Δx on the branch (Δx=distance from the location of the branch on the main strand to the fault location as difference between the first and the second fault location value) is known.”; Examiner notes, as above, interpretation of claim limitation language of “assumed” to be analogous to reference term “estimated” to mean a predicted location of a fault based on some preliminary information and evaluative process. Examiner notes disclosure method is based on and relative to known locations of measurement stations.)
With respect to Claim 11, DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The electronic device according to claim 10,
(References above, applied to Claim 10.)
DZIENIS further teaches:
wherein the assumed fault section further comprises a second assumed fault section, the reference coordinate system further comprises a second reference coordinate system, the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets further comprise a second distributed fault location equation set
(Above, parallel limitation, Claim 3; DZIENIS teaches use of a second fault section Col11,L30 and FIG. 4.)
wherein the second distributed fault location equation is determined according to the second assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the first reference coordinate system,
(As above, DZIENIS teaches a second fault location based on wave arrival time relative to first monitoring point, Pg487.)
wherein the method further comprises: solving a second distributed fault location equation set to determine a second assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section;
(See as above, DZIENIS defines segments between monitoring points for evaluation of fault location in each segment, FIG. 2 and COL10,L30.)
taking the second assumed fault position as the actual fault position if the
second assumed fault position is in the second assumed fault section;
(DZIENIS teaches consideration of second fault position, Col11,L30: “step 39 (cf. FIG. 3), the first and the second fault location value are used to check whether the fault location is located on the main strand or on one of the branches. This is explained in more detail with reference to FIG. 4, which illustrates a detailed view of step 39”)
However, DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, is silent to the language of:
and a third distributed fault location equation set,
wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system,
OR solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section;
and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault position if
the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section.
Nevertheless, MUZZAMMEL further teaches:
and a third distributed fault location equation set,
(MUZZAMMEL teaches consideration of third segment to determine fault location, P9, Section5.1.3. Case 3)
wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system,
(MUZZAMMEL teaches third fault location equation set, Pg.8, Section 5.1, examples 5.1.1-.3, where all fault location equations are expressed in terms other segments, as shown in FIG.4, for example, 5.1.3. Case 3: “Suppose that a fault F3 occurs in the third OH line segment of length L3 as shown in Figure 4. If this fault occurs at t = 0, then the arrival times of the traveling waves at terminal T1 and T2 are:
PNG
media_image2.png
130
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where vi refer to wave speeds in various segments, and solution for fault location is shown in Equation (20)”)
OR solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine
a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section;
(MUZZAMMEL teaches a solution to the third case, as described above, P9, Section 5.1.3, equations (17), (18), (19), and (20), “Based on the distance of fault location from the beginning/start of respective segment, particular faulty segment is identified via algorithm given in subsequent section”; Examiner notes that the above set of equations with solutions also teaches this claim limitation, which is presented in “OR” form with the paired limitation as taught above by DZIENIS, such that the combination of DZIENIS with MUZZAMMEL teaches both limitations presented in OR form.)
and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault
position if the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section.
(MUZZAMMEL teaches locating third fault position, FIG. 5, “Faulty segment identification algorithm”, Equation (22), “identifying fault in segment 3 based on analysis of segment 1 and 2”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG as taught above, to include and a third distributed fault location equation set, and solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section; wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system, and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault position if the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section, such as that further disclosed by MUZZAMMEL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG as taught above, to include and a third distributed fault location equation set, and solving a third distributed fault location equation set to determine a third assumed fault position if the first assumed fault position is outside the first assumed fault section; wherein the third distributed fault location equation set is determined according to the first assumed fault section, the traveling wave propagation speed, and the monitoring point coordinate information and the wavehead arrival time information in the second reference coordinate system, and taking the third assumed fault position as the actual fault position if the third assumed fault position is located in the first assumed fault section, as further taught by MUZZAMMEL because it would be understood as logical method to use in a system with multiple monitoring points, and would be seen as an efficient way to significantly enhance the accuracy and reliability of a fault detection method for a complex network system. Further combining the disclosure of MUZZAMMEL with that of DZIENIS would be viewed by one of ordinary skill as an obvious way to improve the traveling wave fault localization technique.
With respect to Claim 14, DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The electronic device according to claim 9, (References above, applied to Claim 9.)
DZIENIS further teaches: wherein any of the monitoring point positions is arranged at one or more of a
connection of a bus bar and a line, a connection of a cable and an overhead line of different line types, a connection of two lines with different line diameters, and a section with a line length being greater than a preset length and with a needed accurate location,
(DZIENIS teaches method directed to monitoring along bus bar and/or line, and standard electrical connection types, FIG. 9, and Col12,L17: “Measurement point A on the main strand downstream of the first tap (seen from the infeed) is selected as measurement location. If further taps are located on the busbar at measurement location A”)
wherein any of the monitoring point positions is arranged with a traveling wavehead monitoring sensor, the traveling wavehead monitoring sensor is configured to determine a wavehead arrival time of a corresponding monitoring point, and the traveling wavehead monitoring sensor comprises a current type and a voltage type.
(DZIENIS teaches monitoring arrival times at monitoring points, Col1,L56: “methods are known that use measured values from only one of the ends of the line (single-sided fault location) or measured values from both ends of the line (two-sided fault location).” and Col6,L3: “methods are known that use measured values from only one of the ends of the line (single-sided fault location) or measured values from both ends of the line (two-sided fault location)”; Col7.L15: “Times at which traveling waves arrive at both measurement points 13a, 13b are thereby determined at said measurement points.”; and see Col1,L42: “fault location at which the fault is located on a line may be demarcated through analysis of measured variables, for example currents and voltages, acquired during the occurrence of the fault.”)
With respect to Claim 15, DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
The electronic device according to claim 9, (References above, applied to Claim 9.)
However, DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, is silent to the language of:
wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets [[all]] falls into an assumed fault section, wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method.
Nevertheless, MUZZAMEL, further teaches:
wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets [[all]] falls into an assumed fault section,
(MUZZAMEL teaches predicting fault location Pg11: “”frequency of traveling wave is measured to predict and estimate fault location and distance from VSC station”; and teaches use of statistical analysis to classify signals, Pg15, 6.3.2. :” Auto-correlation of matrix”; and use of Pearson correlation Pg16, 7.: “Pearson correlation coefficient is calculated to find similarity between samples of the input feature and existing feature. Then this similarity is used to estimate the fault location [88]”; Examiner notes reference [88 – Hatch, et al.] cited by MUZZAMMEL discloses additional optimization techniques, and is included below as pertinent art.
wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method.
(MUZZAMEL teaches use of weighted averages for fault location, Pg16: “Fault location is estimated by the weighted average of the pointed values obtained from the k most similar patterns…correlation is converted to positive value distance matrix and expressed as
PNG
media_image3.png
41
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where r(x, y) is the Pearson correlation coefficient of signals x and y and r(x, y) ∈ [−1,+1]. ” ; and Pg17, FIG. 9, last flow chart box.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets all falls into an assumed fault section, and to include wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method, such as that further disclosed by MUZZAMMEL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include wherein the determining the actual fault position according to the solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section comprises: determining the actual fault position by using a mathematical statistical method according to the solution result if the solution result of one of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets all falls into an assumed fault section, and to include wherein the mathematical statistical method comprises at least one of an average method, a least squares method, a variance method and a mathematical expectation method, as further taught by MUZZAMMEL because it would be understood as an obvious and advantageous way to improve the method of DZIENIS to pinpoint a fault location in a system. Combining system data as disclosed by DZIENIS using the statistical methods taught by MUZZAMEL, and using multiple mathematical models (equation sets) the accuracy of fault location determination could be refined.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DZIENIS (US 11467200 B2) in view of MUZZAMMEL (Muzzamel, et al., “MT–HVdc Systems Fault Classification and Location Methods Based on Traveling and Non-Traveling Waves—A Comprehensive Review”, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4760) and WANG (Wang, et al., "Overdetermined Equation Based Fault Location Avoiding Influence of Traveling Wave Velocity," 2020 IEEE 3rd Student Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (SCEMS), Jinan, China, 2020, pp. 486-490), as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of YANG (CN-112363021-A).
With respect to Claim 8 (Currently amended), DZIENIS in view of MUZZAMMEL and further in view of WANG teaches:
A ring power network fault location apparatus, configured to execute the method for locating the ring power network fault according to claim 1,
(References above, applied to Claim 1; FIG. 2 and Col6,L41: “FIG. 2 shows a schematic example of a power distribution network having a ring-shaped topology”.)
DZIENIS further teaches:
wherein the ring power network fault location apparatus comprising: a memory, configured to store a computer program; and a processor, configured to run the computer program to:
(DZIENIS teaches standard computational components for carrying out method, Col5,L51: “central data processing device may be for example a computer in a control center of the power distribution network…provision may however also be made for the device to be a cloud data processing device…method may thus be executed on a cloud platform, and the fault location may be offered as a cloud service”: Examiner asserts claim limitation language of “a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor” is analogous to reference “a computer”, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.; DZIENIS further discloses a memory in claim 10: “storing the measured values in a ring buffer”)
expand in each ring line segment in a ring power network wherein the each ring line segment is a line segment between two adjacent monitoring point positions;
(DZIENIS is directed application in ring structure, parallel claim limitation in Claim 1; DZIENIS teaches mathematical expressions for segments, where adjacent segments are shown in FIG. 2, and Col9,L10 and L27, numerical example disclosed in Col12,L33; apparatus described in Col5,L51: “central data processing device may be for example a computer in a control center of the power distribution network.”)
acquire a traveling wave propagation speed;
construct a plurality of distributed fault location equation sets according to the monitoring point coordinate information, the wavehead arrival time information, the assumed fault point information and the traveling wave propagation speed in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems; and
However, DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, is silent to the language of:
[expand in each ring line segment with] arbitrary point as a coordinate origin to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems,
acquire monitoring point coordinate information and wavehead arrival time information of each of the monitoring point positions in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems;
acquire assumed fault point information, wherein the assumed fault point information comprises an assumed fault point coordinate, assumed occurrence fault time and an assumed fault section;
determine an actual fault position according to a solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section.
Nevertheless, MUZZAMMEL further teaches:
[expand in each ring line segment with] arbitrary point as a coordinate origin to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems,
(As above, parallel limitation, Claim 1, MUZZAMMEL teaches determination of distance from VSC Station, Pg7 equation (8), where distance is relative to VSC, and where VSC is on the main feeder line, analogous to “trunk line”, serving as the reference point for determining distance.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems, such as that further disclosed by MUZZAMMEL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems, as further taught by MUZZAMMEL because it would be understood as an efficient way to significantly enhance the accuracy and reliability of a fault detection method for a complex network system. Using a non-fixed reference point would allow a variation in perspective for evaluation of system behavior, making faculty localization process more robust. One of ordinary skill would understand this as an obvious combination with the traveling wave detection method disclosed by DZIENIS.
However, DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, is silent to the language of:
acquire monitoring point coordinate information and wavehead arrival time information of each of the monitoring point positions in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems;
acquire assumed fault point information, wherein the assumed fault point information comprises an assumed fault point coordinate, assumed occurrence fault time and an assumed fault section;
determine an actual fault position according to a solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section.
Nevertheless, YANG teaches:
acquire monitoring point coordinate information and arrival time information of each of the monitoring point positions in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems;
(YANG is in same technical field, Abstract: “distributed line fault detection and positioning system, a plurality of stations are respectively installed with the system”; YANG teaches explicitly a component for wave data acquisition, including arrival time, Abstract: “system comprises: a signal collecting module for collecting the electromagnetic radiation signal generated by the circuit… a fault locating module for determining the position of the arc fault based on arrival time”; Examiner notes Applicant argument concerning what is being measured as disclosed by YANG (Remarks P.20) , but asserts YANG does acknowledge and teach traveling wave method, P.2,L14, and asserts that an electromagnetic radiation signal would be understood by one of ordinary skill to be analogous to the interaction of a traveling (electromagnetic) wave on a conductive line. However, Examiner points out that DZIENIS, modified by MUZZAMEL and WANG, as above do teach explicitly the traveling wave method as the basis of the obviousness combination.; YANG teaches multiple monitoring points, as above, Abstract.)
acquire assumed fault point information, wherein the assumed fault point information comprises an assumed fault point coordinate, assumed occurrence fault time and an assumed fault section;
(YANG teaches fault point determination, P3,L2: “further improvement of the invention, the fault positioning module when judging the circuit arc fault occurs, based on the arrival time difference principle, determining the position of the circuit arc fault, comprising: obtaining the time difference ti1 of the electromagnetic radiation signal received between each non-main site i and the main site 1 through the generalized cross correlation estimation time delay algorithm”)
determine an actual fault position according to a solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section.
(YANG teaches location of fault position, Abstract: “a fault locating module for determining the position of the arc fault based on arrival time 35 difference locating principle of the fault when the circuit is judged to have the arc fault.”; and P3,L3: “fault positioning module when judging the circuit arc fault occurs, based on the arrival time difference principle, determining the position of the circuit arc fault…obtaining the time difference ti1 of the electromagnetic radiation signal received between each non-main site i and the main site…the coordinate value (x1, y1) of the main site and the coordinate value (xi, yi) of each non-main site i, determining the coordinate value (x, y) of the fault point”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include an arbitrary point as a coordinate origin in a ring power network to construct a plurality of reference coordinate systems, and taught above, to include a first acquisition unit configured to acquire monitoring point coordinate information and wavehead arrival time information of each of the monitoring point positions in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems; a second acquisition unit configured to acquire assumed fault point information, wherein the assumed fault point information comprises an assumed fault point coordinate, assumed occurrence fault time and an assumed fault section; and a determination unit configured to determine an actual fault position according to a solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section, such as that of YANG.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to further modify to further modify DZIENIS as modified by MUZZAMMEL and WANG and taught above, to include a first acquisition unit configured to acquire monitoring point coordinate information and wavehead arrival time information of each of the monitoring point positions in each of the plurality of reference coordinate systems; a second acquisition unit configured to acquire assumed fault point information, wherein the assumed fault point information comprises an assumed fault point coordinate, assumed occurrence fault time and an assumed fault section; and a determination unit configured to determine an actual fault position according to a solution result of each of the plurality of distributed fault location equation sets and the assumed fault section, as taught by YANG because it would be understood as a way to compartmentalize and organize the process for fault determination as disclosed by DZIENIS, using a traveling wave method. One of ordinary skill would see value in the efficiency of clearly defining the task for each component in a fault detection system in a modular way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHANG (CN 117688303 A) - teaches a method for fault determination with missing data (translation provided).
BENATO, et al., “Travelling Wave Fault Location Method for Unearthed-Operated High-Voltage Overhead Line Grids,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 33, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2018 (relevant reference cited by WANG, used for rejection above) – teaches single-ended travelling wave-based fault location algorithm.
GUZMAN, et al., “Accurate Single-End Fault Locating Using Traveling-Wave Reflection Information”, 14th International Conference on Developments in Power System Protection Belfast, United Kingdom. March 12–15, 2018. – teaches single end theory of location faults using reflection with less monitoring points.
HATCH. The Lower Churchill Project DC1010—Voltage and Conductor Optimization Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Lower Churchill Project; Exhibit CE-01 Rev. 1 (Public); Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities: NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA, 2008.) - teaches method for multiple point measurements directed at public utility system (relevant reference cited by MUZZAMEL used for rejection above)
KORKALI, et al., “Traveling-Wave-Based Fault-Location Technique for Transmission Grids via Wide-Area Synchronized Voltage Measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1003-1011, May 2012. (relevant reference cited by WANG, used for rejection above) – teaches novel computational approach for fault detection independent of fault type.
LIU, et al. “A Traveling Wave Fault Location Method for Earth Faults Based on Mode Propagation Time Delays of Multi-measuring Points”, PRZEGLĄD ELEKTROTECHNICZNY (Electrical Review), ISSN 0033-2097, R. 88 NR 3a/2012 – teaches traveling wave fault location method using phase-mode transformation theory to determine fault location, uses time delay.
NAIDU, “A Traveling Wave-Based Fault Location Method Using Unsynchronized Current Measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 505-513, April 2019. (relevant reference cited by WANG, used for rejection above) – teaches traveling wave method for fault location using unsynchronized data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863