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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8 and 15, “… according to the optimal loads in the grid topology to shed” is unclear; change to “optimal loads to shed in the grid topology”;
Claims 3 and 10, “and which is configured…” is grammatically awkward; and
Claims 4 and 11, “for no feasible solutions being available” is also grammatically awkward.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393468 A1 (hereinafter: ‘468) in view of BELLISSIMA et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0322591 A1 (hereinafter: ‘591).
As per claim 1, ‘468 discloses a method, comprising:
for a selection of one or more lines in a grid to bring down in a grid topology (e.g., See ‘468; [0033], [0036] and [0037], which disclose the system using grid topology and breaker status to evaluate lines being opened (brought down) and then determining a corrective action, wherein [0040] further discloses solving a model to determine which breakers to open and/or close);
executing a load shedding optimizing process configured to determine optimal loads in the grid that can be shed while maintaining grid stability according to stability parameters, the determination of optimal loads is based on one or more lines chosen to be brought down (e.g., See ‘468; [0032], [0033], [0037], [0042] and [0043], which disclose optimizing which loads to shed after a topology change (e.g., line(s) brought down) using the current system topology and breaker status and solving a linear optimization having operating constraints (limits) to maintain grid stability), and load importance (e.g., See ‘468; [0031], which discloses giving higher priority loads higher weights so they are less likely to be shed); and
executing a load shedding process to shed loads in the grid according to the optimal loads in the grid topology to shed (e.g., See ‘468; [0040] and [0041], which disclose determining which breakers to trip, then sending trip signals to shed the chosen loads).
However, ‘468 does not specifically disclose that the determination of optimal loads is also based on the identification of loads in the grid that can be partially or completely shed.
‘591 appears to adequately disclose this missing feature (e.g., See ‘591; [0080] and [0111], which discloses identifying adjustable loads and controlling those loads via a ratio that can be set from 0% to 100% so that loads can be fully or partially reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘591 into ‘468 for the purpose of keeping the grid stable while cutting less power to customers by reducing some loads instead of shutting them off, thereby keeping critical loads running when selected lines are taken down.
As per claim 2, ‘468 in view of ‘591 further disclose that the stability parameters are user defined margins for the grid topology with respect to voltage, current, and other parameters in the grid (e.g., see ‘468; [0032] and [0036], which disclose user defined grid limits (current, voltage and others) used to keep operations stable).
As per claim 3, ‘468 in view of ‘591 further disclose that the load shedding optimizing process comprises: executing an iterative algorithm based on genetic algorithm that intakes loads available for shedding determined from the load importance and the identification of the loads in the grid that can be partially or completely shed as genes, a set of loads as a chromosome, and which is configured to iteratively simulate the grid based on the selected one or more lines to bring down and provide load values as the optimal loads (e.g., See ‘591; [0107], [0136], [0148] and [0150], which disclose using a genetic algorithm where load ratios are coded as genes in a chromosome, candidates are repeatedly evaluated, and the best load values are chosen; further, the grid topology simulation of selecting line(s) to be taken down is already adequately addressed by ‘468 in view of ‘591, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, from above).
As per claim 5, ‘468 in view of ‘591 further disclose that the load shedding optimization process is configured to use power flow analysis that analyzes the grid and determines steady state values for lines and the loads based on the one or more lines chosen to be brought down (e.g., See ‘468; [0022], [0023], [0024], [0037] and [0038], which disclose using power flow analysis to calculate steady-state line and load values, based on a selected line being down, and then using those results to determine what to shed).
As per claim 6, ‘468 in view of ‘591 further disclose that the load importance is indicative of an order of a load priority for determining which of the loads to shed (e.g., See ‘468; [0031] and [0043], which disclose using priority weights to rank load importance for determining which loads to shed).
As per claim 7, ‘468 in view of ‘591 further disclose that the loads that can be partially shed are set to a non-zero value, wherein the loads that can be completely shed are set to zero (e.g., See ‘591; [0111] and [0123], which disclose that a non-zero load ratio corresponds to the load being partly reduced, and a zero ratio corresponds to load being fully reduced to zero).
As per claim 8, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 is applied herein. It is noted that this claim merely recites the same operations as claim 1, only claim 8 requires the operations to be stored as instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
As per claim 9, the rationale as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 10, the rationale as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 12, the rationale as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 13, the rationale as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 14, the rationale as set forth in the rejection of claim 7, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 15, the rationale as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 is applied herein. It is noted that this claim merely recites the same operations as claim 1, only claim 15 requires the operations to be performed by an apparatus having a processor that executes them.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘468 in view of ‘591, as applied to claims 3 and 10, respectively, from above, and further in view of Bartlett et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0241894 (hereinafter: ‘894).
As per claim 4, ‘468 in view of ‘591 does not adequately disclose that the iterative algorithm is configured, for no feasible solutions being available, to iteratively consider additional possible loads from the loads available based on the load importance until a solution can be provided.
‘894 discloses these features (e.g., See ‘894; [0035] and [0042], which disclose that if the stabilizing condition is not met, the shedding of additional loads in lowest priority order occurs, until the conditions stabilize).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘894 into ‘468 in view of ‘591 for the purpose of improving robustness when no feasible solution is found by continuing to shed additional lower priority loads until stability is restored.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2014/0001847 A1, which discloses predicting upcoming grid problems, running simulations, and choosing the best response (load shedding) to avoid instabilities;
(2) US 7,816,927 B2, which discloses calculating a fast voltage stability index after an outage and triggering remedial load or generator shedding before the grid collapses;
(3) US 2012/0022713 A1, which discloses simulating a distribution network with power flow models and testing different load shedding options to pick an effective shedding plan;
(4) US 10,439,433 B2, which discloses using optimization during restoration to decide which lines to energize and which loads to pick up, the goal being to minimize unserved loads;
(5) US 9,563,215 B2, which discloses building customer profiles, ranking interruptible loads, and rotating curtailments so utilities can cut a percentage of demand during grid events; and
(6) US 2013/0046411 A1, which discloses coordinating neighborhood EV charging, setting power caps during demand response events, and reducing charging levels when available energy is limited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 February 26, 2026;
/RDH/