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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: decision tree engine configured to instantiate a decision tree model…, disconnect edges in the model…., determine a reconfiguration path….in claim 1, power flow simulation engine configured to generate a simulation to estimate….., compare the estimates….., classify the reconfiguration…..in claim 1, decision tree engine is further configured to generate chance nodes in claim 3, power flow simulation engine is further configured to determine an aggregated load in claim 5, power flow simulation engine is further configured to determine all combinations of load loss scenarios in claim 6, power flow simulation engine is further configured to apply thresholds to reduce the number of candidate loss loads in claim 8, decision tree engine is further configured to determine which switch to close in claim 9, power simulation engine is further configured to determine a probability for each contingency in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 14are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " intime( ) and outtime( ) " in line 2. It is unclear what elements are included in those two parentheses. Appropriated correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " intime( ) and outtime( ) " in lines 8-9. It is unclear what elements are included in those two parentheses. Appropriated correction is required.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “decision tree engine configured to instantiate a decision tree model” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the model instantiation. The use of the term “instantiate” is not adequate structure for performing the model instantiation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “decision tree engine configured to disconnect edges in the model” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the model disconnect. The use of the term “disconnect” is not adequate structure for performing the model disconnect because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “decision tree engine configured to determine a reconfiguration path” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the determination. The use of the term “determine” is not adequate structure for performing the path determination because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “power flow simulation engine configured to generate a simulation to estimate” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the simulation generating. The use of the term “generate” is not adequate structure for performing the simulation generating because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “power flow simulation engine configured to compare the estimates” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the comparison. The use of the term “compare” is not adequate structure for performing the comparison because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “power flow simulation engine configured to classify the reconfiguration” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the classification. The use of the term “classify” is not adequate structure for performing the classification because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “decision tree engine is further configured to generate chance nodes” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the node generating. The use of the term “generate” is not adequate structure for performing the node generating because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “power flow simulation engine is further configured to determine an aggregated load” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the load determination. The use of the term “determine” is not adequate structure for performing the load determination because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “power flow simulation engine is further configured to determine all combinations of load loss scenarios” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the determination. The use of the term “determine” is not adequate structure for performing the determination because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “power flow simulation engine is further configured to apply thresholds to reduce the number of candidate loss loads” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the apply. The use of the term “apply” is not adequate structure for performing the apply because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “decision tree engine is further configured to determine which switch to close” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the determination. The use of the term “determine” is not adequate structure for performing the determination because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “power simulation engine is further configured to determine a probability for each contingency” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the determination. The use of the term “determine” is not adequate structure for performing the determination because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to instantiate a decision tree model, disconnect edges in the model, determine a reconfiguration path, generate a simulation to estimate, compare the estimates, and classify the reconfiguration. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to generate chance nodes. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to determine an aggregated load. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to determine all combinations of load loss scenarios. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to apply thresholds to reduce the number of candidate loss loads. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to determine which switch to close. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to determine a probability for each contingency. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a system which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites steps of “instantiate a decision tree model configured as a graph with nodes and edges corresponding to simulated outage states of one or more buses in the power distribution system and simulated states of reconfigurable switches in the power distribution system, the model spanning from parent nodes to child nodes in a radial pattern of branches; disconnect edges in the model related to each outage; and determine a reconfiguration path with a plurality of switches reconfigured to a closed state by an iteration of tree search algorithms”, “generate a simulation to estimate feeder cable and transformer loading and bus voltages on the reconfigured path; compare the estimates against constraints including system capacity ratings and minimum voltage; and classify the reconfiguration as successful on a condition that the constraints are satisfied; wherein further iterations of the tree search algorithms are repeated to identify additional candidate reconfiguration paths and to rank reconfiguration paths classified as successful”. As is evident from the background, this limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited instantiation, disconnection, determination, generation, comparison, and classification can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitation “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database”. The additional elements represent mere data gathering (obtaining the constraints) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “power distribution system”, “processor”, “memory”, “power distribution system database”, “decision tree engine”, and “power flow simulation engine” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitation of “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database” represent mere data gathering (obtaining the constraints values) is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “power distribution system”, “processor”, “memory”, “power distribution system database”, “decision tree engine”, and “power flow simulation engine” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites steps of “executing a Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm and a spanning tree search (STS) algorithm, wherein the MCTS algorithm is configured to select a child node for expansion, and the STS algorithm is configured to: set open a subset of configurable switches in the model; identify islands of connected components through aggregation of connected loads; and reconstruct a condensed graph from spanning trees across aggregated components; wherein the MCTS algorithm triggers the power flow simulation with a selection of at least one switch closure”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 3 recites steps of “generate chance nodes in the decision tree model for tracking probabilities for a reconfiguration branch decision of a parent node to either of two child nodes, wherein the probabilities relate to a successful reconfiguration classification”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 4 recites steps of “the probabilities are computed in a parallelized manner”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements “a set of parallel processors” which recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 5 recites steps of “determine an aggregated load under each feeder line by traversing the decision tree using a breadth-first-search traversal algorithm”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 6 recites step of “determine all combinations of load loss scenarios and parent-child relationships among outage edges, and to calculate a total load loss for all aggregated loads for each distribution circuit lost in the outage”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites step of “the parent-child relationships are determined based on intime( ) and outtime( ) recorded time stamp values for when outage nodes are pushed into and out of a stack during a depth-first-search traversal of the decision tree model”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 8 recites steps of “the parent-child relationships are determined based on intime and outtime recorded time stamp values for when outage nodes are pushed into and out of a stack during a depth-first-search traversal of the decision tree model”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 9 recites steps of “determine which switch to close by: ranking islanded components in order of importance criteria, filtering highest ranking components based on loading of a grid connected feeder on energized side of the switch, and nodal voltage being above minimum specifications”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 10 recites steps of “determine a probability for each contingency and rank the candidate reconfigurations according to resiliency level”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitation “send a resiliency level distribution for the power distribution system to a display as a graph of contingency probability versus load loss for the contingency” The additional elements represent mere data transmission that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation “send a resiliency level distribution for the power distribution system to a display as a graph of contingency probability versus load loss for the contingency” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 11 recites steps of “instantiate a decision tree model configured as a graph with nodes and edges corresponding to simulated outage states of one or more buses in the power distribution system and simulated states of reconfigurable switches in the power distribution system, the model spanning from parent nodes to child nodes in a radial pattern of branches; disconnect edges in the model related to each outage; and determine a reconfiguration path with a plurality of switches reconfigured to a closed state by an iteration of tree search algorithms”, “generate a simulation to estimate feeder cable and transformer loading and bus voltages on the reconfigured path; compare the estimates against constraints including system capacity ratings and minimum voltage; and classify the reconfiguration as successful on a condition that the constraints are satisfied; wherein further iterations of the tree search algorithms are repeated to identify additional candidate reconfiguration paths and to rank reconfiguration paths classified as successful”. As is evident from the background, this limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited instantiation, disconnection, determination, generation, comparison, and classification can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitation “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database”. The additional elements represent mere data gathering (obtaining the constraints) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element “power distribution system database” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitation of “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database” represent mere data gathering (obtaining the constraints values) is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation “the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database” do not amount to significantly more. The additional element “power distribution system database” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 12 recites steps of “executing a Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm and a spanning tree search (STS) algorithm, wherein the MCTS algorithm is configured to select a child node for expansion, and the STS algorithm is configured to: set open a subset of configurable switches in the model; identify islands of connected components through aggregation of connected loads; and reconstruct a condensed graph from spanning trees across aggregated components; wherein the MCTS algorithm triggers the power flow simulation with a selection of at least one switch closure”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 13 recites steps of “generating chance nodes in the decision tree model for tracking probabilities for a reconfiguration branch decision of a parent node to either of two child nodes, wherein the probabilities relate to a successful reconfiguration classification”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 14 recites steps of “determining an aggregated load under each feeder line by traversing the decision tree using a breadth-first-search traversal algorithm; determining all combinations of load loss scenarios and parent-child relationships among outage edges; and calculating a total load loss for all aggregated loads for each distribution circuit lost in the outage; wherein the parent-child relationships are determined based on intime and outtime recorded time stamp values for when outage nodes are pushed into and out of a stack during a depth-first-search traversal of the decision tree model”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 15 recites steps of “determining which switch to close by: ranking islanded components in order of importance criteria, and filtering highest ranking components based on loading of a grid connected feeder on energized side of the switch, and nodal voltage being above minimum specifications”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaiquin (US 20170358914 A1) in view of Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) (US 20200153273 A1).
As to claims 1 and 11, Chaiquin teaches a system and method for power distribution system reconfigurations comprising:
Instantiating a determination configured as a graph with nodes and edges corresponding to outage states of one or more buses in the power distribution system and states of reconfigurable switches in the power distribution system, the model spanning from parent nodes to child nodes in a radial pattern of branches [0005, 0019-00201, 0105-01092];
disconnecting edges in the model related to each outage [0073-0075, 0139, 0144]; and
determining a reconfiguration path with a plurality of switches reconfigured to a closed state by an iteration of graph search algorithms [0005, 0019, 0079-0083, 0090-0097, 0105-0112];
generating a simulation to estimate feeder cable and transformer loading and bus voltages on the reconfigured path [0098-0099, 0136];
comparing the estimates against constraints including system capacity ratings and minimum voltage, the constraints extracted from a power distribution system database [0083, 0098-00993, 0136]; and
classifying the reconfiguration as successful on a condition that the constraints are satisfied; wherein further iterations of tree search algorithms are repeated to identify additional candidate reconfiguration paths and to rank reconfiguration paths classified as successful [0005, 0019, 0079-0083, 0090-0097, 0105-01124, 0135-0136].
Chaiquin teaches a system and method for fault detection and recovery in an electrical power distribution network employing a mesh graph configuration to determine a plurality of restoration paths [Abstract, 0005, 0019, 0079-0083, 0090-0097, 0105-0112, 0135-0136]. Chaiquin teaches does not teach using a decision tree model to determine the power fault.
However, Sun teaches a system and method for power restoration of power distribution system. Especially, Sun teaches using a decision tree model to analyze power fault using path search through spanning tree graph [0023-0024, 0044-0052, 0073, 0078, 0109, 0120].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sun with the teachings of Chaiquin for the purpose of determining and selecting an optimized path to retore power from outage through different graph configurations includes a spanning tree graph model.
As to claims 3 and 13, Chaiquin teaches the decision tree engine is further configured to generate chance nodes in the decision tree model for tracking probabilities for a reconfiguration branch decision of a parent node to either of two child nodes, wherein the probabilities relate to a successful reconfiguration classification [0005, 0019, 0079-0083, 0090-0099, 0105-0112, 0135-0136].
As to claim 4, Chaiquin teaches the processor comprises a set of parallel processors, and the probabilities are computed in a parallelized manner across the parallel processors [Fig. 9] [0096-0103].
As to claim 5, Chaiquin teaches determine an aggregated load under each feeder line by traversing the decision tree using a breadth-first-search traversal algorithm [0107].
As to claim 6, Chaiquin teaches the power flow simulation engine is further configured to determine all combinations of load loss scenarios and parent-child relationships among outage edges, and to calculate a total load loss for all aggregated loads for each distribution circuit lost in the outage [0049, 0098-0099, 0136].
As to claim 7, Chaiquin teaches the parent-child relationships are determined based on intime and outtime recorded time stamp values for when outage nodes are pushed into and out of a stack during a depth-first-search traversal of the decision tree model [0105-0113].
As to claim 8, Chaiquin teaches the power flow simulation engine is further configured to apply thresholds to reduce the number of candidate loss loads based on outages having low probability or outages having aggregated load below a low threshold [0083, 0098-0099, 0136].
As to claims 9 and 15, Sun teaches k outages are known to have occurred, and the decision tree engine is further configured to determine which switch to close by: ranking islanded components in order of importance criteria, filtering highest ranking components based on loading of a grid connected feeder on energized side of the switch, and nodal voltage being above minimum specifications [0013, 0024-0025, 0044-0052, 0162-0165].
As to claim 10, Sun teaches the power simulation engine is further configured to: determine a probability for each contingency; send a resiliency level distribution for the power distribution system to a display as a graph of contingency probability versus load loss for the contingency; and rank the candidate reconfigurations according to resiliency level [0009-0010, 0018, 0044-0052, 0077-0080, 0120, 0162-0165].
As to claim 14, Chaiquin teaches determine an aggregated load under each feeder line by traversing the decision tree using a breadth-first-search traversal algorithm, determine all combinations of load loss scenarios and parent-child relationships among outage edges, and to calculate a total load loss for all aggregated loads for each distribution circuit lost in the outage, wherein the parent-child relationships are determined based on intime and outtime recorded time stamp values for when outage nodes are pushed into and out of a stack during a depth-first-search traversal of the decision tree model [0049, 0098-0099, 0105-0113, 0136].
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaiquin in view of Sun, and further in view of LIU et al. (hereinafter “LIU”) (US 20200127457 A1).
As to claim 2, Chaiquin teaches a system and method for fault detection and recovery in an electrical power distribution network employing a mesh graph configuration to determine a plurality of restoration paths [Abstract, 0005, 0019, 0079-0083, 0090-0097, 0105-0112, 0135-0136]. Sun teaches a system and method for power restoration of power distribution system using a decision tree model to analyze power fault using path search through spanning tree graph wherein set open a subset of configurable switches in the model; identify islands of connected components through aggregation of connected loads; and reconstruct a condensed graph from spanning trees across aggregated components triggers the power flow simulation with a selection of at least one switch closure [0013,0023-0025, 0044-0052, 0073, 0078, 0109, 0120, 0162-0165]. Chaiquin and Sun teaches does not teach using a a Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm to select a child node for expansion.
However, LIU teaches a method and system for online decision making of power line restored based on the real-time power system data. Especially, LIU teaches applying Monte Carlo to search the next line to be restored during generator start-up and perform parallel computation adopted to check the constraints for the restoration of alternative lines wherein the results of Monte Carlo are summarized to determine the line to be restored next [Abstract, 0077-0012, 0026-0030, 0042-0047, 0073-0082].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of LIU with the teachings of Chaiquin and Sun for the purpose of determining and selecting an optimized path to retore power from outage through different graph configurations includes a Monte Carlo tree search graph model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 5712723667. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 [0019] In another broad aspect, there is provided an apparatus for automatic fault recovery in an electrical power distribution network having a plurality of electrical power sources in a mesh configuration, the apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, the processor configured to: determine that a first electrical power source of the electrical power distribution network is in a non-conductive state; trace at least one virtual path, each virtual path originating at the first electrical power source, each virtual path terminating with a respective unique alternate electrical power source, and each virtual path comprising at least one load switch associated therewith and pre-configured to a non-conductive state, the at least one tie switch being less than or equal to a permitted maximum number of tie switches; select a restoration path from the at least one virtual path, the restoration path comprising a selected node or segment in the electrical power distribution network; electrically isolate the selected node or segment; configure the at least one load switch associated with the restoration path to the conductive state; and restore the first electrical power source to a conductive state.
2 [0105] At 710, the electrical power distribution network is represented as a graph. Each node within the network may be classified according to its connectedness or degree, as described herein. That is, nodes may be characterized by the number of edges or segments to which they are connected. Generally, each edge represents a degree. Therefore, a node connected to one segment is described as a node of degree one. A node connecting two segments is described as a node of degree two. Similarly, nodes connecting three segments are described as nodes of degree three, and so on. Nodes connecting four or more links can be characterized as nodes of four or more, respectively. However, nodes of degree four or more can be reduced conceptually to multiple nodes of degree three. That is, a node of degree four can be reduced to two nodes of degree three.
[0108] At 740, beginning from a base node (initially the first node of the source circuit breaker), the controller can explore the graph to locate any new, unvisited neighboring node.
[0109] At 750, if a previously unvisited neighboring node is encountered, it is marked as the current node. The controller can determine whether the segment between the base node and the current node is a tie segment (a segment terminated at an open load switch). If the segment is a tie segment, and if the current candidate virtual path being explored is within the number of permitted tie segments (e.g., zero other tie segments if only one tie segment is permitted per virtual path, one other tie segment if up to two tie segments are permitted per virtual path, etc.), then the tie segment is added to the current candidate virtual path and marked as such. If the current candidate virtual path being search already includes the maximum permitted amount of tie segments, the virtual path may be abandoned, thereby simplifying the scope of the search.
3 [0099] At 635, the controller may evaluate each of the preselected virtual paths that involves the fault and select an operative restoration path. Various factors, such as current-bearing capacity, loads, or other operational reasons, may be evaluated when selecting the restoration path. For example, in the example of FIG. 9, virtual path VP4 may be preferred over virtual paths VP3 or VP5, since the present current load at feeder 915e is lower than at feeder 915d or 915f.
4 [0112] At 780, if the conditions are not fulfilled, the search may return to 740 to continue searching. If the conditions are fulfilled, then the number of known virtual paths can be deterministically verified at 790 as described herein. If all available virtual paths have been identified, the sub-process may end. Otherwise, the controller may return to 730 to continue searching further.