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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-11, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seiler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0240381 A1 (hereinafter: ‘381).
As per claim 1, ‘381 discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing a power grid model comprising a topological representation of a power grid and electrical specifications of grid components (e.g., See ‘381; [0097] and [0141], which disclose the system obtaining a grid model with line connections and electrical specs (impedance and ratings) from a database);
obtaining first interconnection data representing a first proposed interconnection to the power grid (e.g., See ‘381; [0220] and [0221], which disclose the system obtaining details for a proposed new grid connection (e.g., adding a generator));
selecting at least one other proposed interconnection to the power grid from among a plurality of different proposed interconnections (e.g., See ‘381; [0068] and [0154], which disclose a user selecting additional queued connection requests from multiple proposed interconnections);
generating a modified power grid model at least by incorporating the first proposed interconnection and the at least one other proposed interconnection into the power grid model (e.g., See ‘381; [0151] and [1054], which disclose updating the grid model by adding the selected connection changes to the model);
executing a simulation of the power grid using the modified power grid model to obtain simulated power grid data with the first proposed interconnection and the at least one other proposed interconnection (e.g., See ‘381; [0112] and [0113], which disclose running a grid simulation on the updated grid model to generate simulated operating characteristic results data (e.g., flow and voltage)); and
determining, from the simulated power grid data, a combined impact of the first proposed interconnection and the at least one other proposed interconnection on the power grid (e.g., See ‘381; [0072] and [0074], which disclose using the simulated results data and a comparison output (e.g., limit exceeded) to determine the impact of the selected changes).
As per claim 5, ‘381 further discloses that determining the combined impact comprises applying assessment criteria (e.g., See ‘381; [0114] and [0117], which disclose comparing simulation results to established limits to determine the impacts).
As per claim 6, ‘381 further discloses that the assessment criteria comprise one or more conditions and one or more values (e.g., See ‘381; [0112] and [0114], which disclose using chosen conditions and limit values to test the simulation results).
As per claim 9, ‘381 further discloses that an expected implementation date of at least one other proposed interconnection and an expected implementation date of the first proposed interconnection are within a configured time period (e.g., See ‘381; [0100] and [0125], which discloses tracking in service dates and filters connections to those within a chosen time frame).
As per claim 10, ‘381 further discloses that determining the combined impact comprises evaluating a rule by matching a predicted safety violation to a condition specified in the rule; and in response to determining that the predicted safety violation matches the condition, providing a recommended adjustment that is predicted to remediate the predicted safety violation (e.g., See ‘381; [0117], [0224] and [0225], which disclose the system comparing simulation results to established limits, determining violations, and then recommending changes to fix the violations).
As per claim 11, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 1, from above, is applied herein. Further, ‘381 discloses implementation by computers running applications that include processing circuitry and storage (e.g., See ‘381; [0093] and [0094]).
As per claim 15, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 5, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 18, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 9, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 19, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 10, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 20, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 1, from above, is applied herein. Further, ‘381 discloses implementation via processing circuitry executing instructions that are stored in a storage device (e.g., See ‘381; [0093] and [0095]).
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 2-4, 8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0240381 A1 (hereinafter: ‘381), as applied to claims 1 and 11, from above, and further in view of Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0013737 A1 (hereinafter: ‘737).
As per claim 2, ‘381 does not specifically disclose generating, from at least the first proposed interconnection and the at least one other proposed interconnection, permutations of proposed interconnections.
‘737 discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘737; [0032], which discloses generating all possible grid configurations by combining simulation models into composite simulations models for the configurations).
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 ‘737 into ‘381 for the purpose of quickly trying many interconnection combinations to identify grid limit sooner and make planning decisions more reliable.
As per claim 3, ‘381’s combined system (‘381 in view of ‘737) further discloses generating a set of modified power grid models for a set of the permutations of proposed interconnections (e.g., See ‘737; [0032], which discloses generating multiple composite simulated grid models, one for each configuration of the grid).
As per claim 4, ‘381’s combined system further discloses that executing a simulation of the power grid using the modified power grid models includes executing a simulation of the set of modified power grid models (e.g., See ‘737; [0032] and [0033], which disclose generating multiple composite simulation models for different grid configurations and running controller tuning functions for each configuration using the composite simulation models).
As per claim 8, ‘381 does not discloses that the at least one other proposed interconnection shares a feeder with the first proposed interconnection.
‘737 discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘737; [0039], which discloses multiple power generation units within the same feeder power line behind a circuit breaker).
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 ‘737 into ‘381 for the purpose of correctly grouping same-feeder connections so feeder overloads are predicted earlier and fixes can be planned sooner.
As per claim 12, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 2, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 13, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 3, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 14, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 4, from above, is applied herein.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0240381 A1 (hereinafter: ‘381), as applied to claims 5 and 15, from above, and further in view of Giuntoli et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0302325 A1 (hereinafter: ‘325).
As per claim 7, ‘381 does not specifically disclose that the assessment criteria comprise a machine learning model.
‘325 discloses this feature (e.g., See ‘325; [0010] and [0016], which disclose using a trained AI model to decide if the grid violates safety limits).
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 ‘737 into ‘381 for the purpose of quickly reorganizing grid condition violations so planners can respond sooner with few manual checkups.
As per claim 16, the rationale as set forth with respect to the rejection of claim 7, from above, is applied herein.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0240381 A1 (hereinafter: ‘381), in view of Giuntoli et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0302325 A1 (hereinafter: ‘325), as applied to claim 16, from above, in further view of Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0013737 A1 (hereinafter: ‘737).
As per claim 17, ‘381 does not discloses that the at least one other proposed interconnection shares a feeder with the first proposed interconnection.
‘737 discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘737; [0039], which discloses multiple power generation units within the same feeder power line behind a circuit breaker).
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 ‘737 into ‘381 for the purpose of correctly grouping same-feeder connections so feeder overloads are predicted earlier and fixes can be planned sooner.
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 11,195,130 B2, which discloses software that guide and tracks utility interconnection applications through defined workflow steps, statuses, forms, deadlines and approvals;
(2) US 10,873,188 B2, which discloses calculating dynamic hosting capacity using grid models, power flow, and scenarios so utilities can evaluate DER interconnection requests and limit violations;
(3) US 2017/0228479 A1, which discloses creating a virtual microgrid model, syncing it with real time sensor data, and simulating scenarios to forecast system behavior for operators;
(4) US 2012/0072039 A1, which discloses running power flow and contingency models with forecasts to predict overload risks and suggest operational actions or upgrades to avoid equipment violations; and
(5) US 12,244,141 B2, which discloses feeder hosting capacity studies that select smart scenarios and mitigation options, which help utilities find out how much DER can be connected safely.
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 March 2, 2026
/RDH/