DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/293,121 and its preliminary amendment filed on January 29, 2024 in which claims 1-13 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending, of which claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, and 12 are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed January 30, 2024 and June 25, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, 365(c), or 371 is acknowledged.
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 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).
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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “a predicting module, “a first calculating module,” “a second calculating module,” and “an optimizing module” in claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al., US Publication 2003/0055677 (hereinafter Brown) in view of Rudkevich et al., US Publication 2013/0226358 (hereinafter Rudkevich), as applied to the instant claims, and in further view of Alexandra Twin, Total Cost of Ownership – TCO, June 25, 2019, Investopedia.com, Pages 1-6 (hereinafter Twin).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a method for optimizing operation of a transformer substation, the transformer substation including a plurality of transformers connected or disconnected by the optimization method comprising “acquiring a current load of each of the plurality of transformers” (Brown ¶ 74) by acquiring actual load data for each customer. Additionally, Brown discloses “predicting predicted loads of each of the plurality of transformers in various possible operating modes in a plurality of time periods based on the respective current loads” (Brown ¶ 43) where the load is predicted for different times and usage terms (i.e., operating modes). Further, Brown discloses “calculating transformer costs for each of the transformers in the plurality of time periods based on the predicted loads of each of the transformers, the transformer costs comprising … transformer operation costs” (Brown ¶¶ 51, 92) by calculating costs, including management costs (i.e., operation costs). Finally, Brown discloses “calculating a total cost in a total time period based on the transformer costs” (Brown ¶ 82) where to the total cost in a time period is calculated.
Brown does not appear to explicitly disclose “the transformer costs comprising transformer losses and transformer operation costs;” “calculating switch costs in the plurality of time periods based on a purchase cost and a service life for a respective switch corresponding to each of the transformers;” and “calculating a total cost in a total time period based on the transformer costs and the switch costs, optimizing the total cost to obtain optimization parameters, and operating the transformer substation according to the optimization parameters, the total time period consisting of the plurality of time periods.”
However, Rudkevich discloses a transformer transmission network optimization process that calculates transformer costs including “the transformer costs comprising transformer losses and transformer operation costs” (Rudkevich ¶ 64) where the profitability criterion include operating costs and line loss costs. Additionally, Rudkevich discloses “calculating switch costs in the plurality of time periods … a respective switch corresponding to each of the transformers” (Rudkevich ¶ 40) where the switch cost is calculated based on the congestion costs it relieves or causes. Further, Rudkevich discloses “calculating a total cost in a total time period based on the transformer costs and the switch costs” (Rudkevich ¶ 66) where the total cost derivatives consider the switch data. Finally, Rudkevich discloses “optimizing the total cost to obtain optimization parameters, and operating the transformer substation according to the optimization parameters, the total time period consisting of the plurality of time periods” (Rudkevich ¶ 47) by optimizing the costs of the network and generating sensitivity parameters.
Brown and Rudkevich are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of transformer cost calculation methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Brown and Rudkevich before him or her to modify the total cost calculations of Brown to include the optimization steps of Rudkevich.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the ability to optimize the parameters of the system result in performance improvements. (Rudkevich ¶ 4).
The combination of Brown and Rudkevich does not appear to explicitly disclose “calculating switch costs in the plurality of time periods based on a purchase cost and a service life for a respective switch corresponding to each of the transformers.”
However, Twin discloses that it is a well-known fact that to calculate the total cost of ownership of any item, that cost is based on the purchase price and the cost to operate of the life of the product. (Twin 1). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Twin was combined with Brown and Rudkevich, the switch costs of Brown and Rudkevich would be the total cost of ownership, as calculated according to Twin. Therefore, the combination of Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “calculating switch costs in the plurality of time periods based on a purchase cost and a service life for a respective switch corresponding to each of the transformers,” rendering it obvious.
Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of cost calculations.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin before him or her to modify the switch cost calculation of Brown and Rudkevich to include the total cost of ownership calculation of Twin.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the calculation of Twin provides better economic value. (Twin 1).
Regarding claim 7, it merely recites an apparatus for performing the method of claim 1. The apparatus comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 7 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it merely recites an electronic device for performing the method of claim 1. The electronic device comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 7 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the combination of Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin discloses “calculating power reliability costs based on the predicted loads of each of the transformers” (Rudkevich ¶ 74) where the calculated costs using the predicted load include reliability costs. Further, the combination of Brown, Rudkevich, and Twin discloses “calculating the total cost based on the transformer costs, the switch costs and the power reliability costs” (Rudkevich ¶ 47) where the calculation of the total costs includes all the costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Smiley et al., US Publication 2005/0096886, System and method for predicting the costs to operate a transformer.
Cheim et al., US Publication 2007/0050302, System and method for predicting the costs to operate a transformer.
Zeanah et al., US Patent 8,116,916, System and method for selecting a correct transformer size based on predicted usage.
Porter, US Patent 10,868,425, System and method for predicting load values on a transformer.
Blug, US Patent 11,251,612, System and method for calculating a transformer load value.
Ma, Li et al., CN 108549966, Provides various formulas for predicting load values.
Wang, CN 110690702, Provides various formulas for predicting load values.
Zhang, CN 11161408, Provides various formulas for predicting load values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662