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
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites, based on determining that there is not difference between forcing the faulty status to "open" or "closed", determining that the faulty status is redundant. This is being considered as a typographical error and the limitation is being interpreted to recite, based on determining that there is no difference between forcing the faulty status to "open" or "closed", determining that the faulty status is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites,
force the faulty status to “open” and determine whether the first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current and determine whether closing the second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground;
force the faulty status to “closed” and determine whether the first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current and determine whether closing the second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground; and
based on determining that there is not difference between forcing the faulty status to “open” or “closed”, determining that the faulty status is redundant.
It is unclear as to what forcing the faulty status to “open” or “closed” and whether it means to “open” or “close” the circuit breaker associated with the faulty status as recited in claim 19. Additionally, it is also unclear whether forcing the faulty status to “open” or “closed” involves physically closing any entity on the distribution system or is it being considered as being “open” or “closed” as the determination steps are carried out. For the sake of compact prosecution, limitation regarding forcing the faulty status to “open” or “closed” is being interpreted as considering the third circuit breaker associated with the faulty status as “open” or “closed”.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method. The claim(s) recite(s), generating a graph representing interconnection between devices in the power delivery system; determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim recites generating a graph representing interconnection between devices in the power delivery system. Without any specific limitation narrowing the generation process of the graph, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of performing the function of generating a graph representing interconnection between devices in the power delivery system. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). With regards to determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current, without any specific limitation reciting the determination process, under the broadest reasonable interpretation human mind is capable of determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current. Similarly human mind is capable of determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim recites additional elements directed to, receiving a representation of a topology of a power delivery system; in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action. With regards to “receiving a representation of a topology of a power delivery system”, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim also recites, “in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action”. “determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground” is directed to a abstract idea of mental process as described above. Limitation further recites enabling the action based on this determination. However, the claim does not recite any particular action neither does it describe provide any mechanism for enabling the action. In absence of any details regarding the particularity of the action and any mechanism for executing the action, the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites additional elements directed to, receiving a representation of a topology of a power delivery system; in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action. With regards to “receiving a representation of a topology of a power delivery system”, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Claim also recites, “in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action”. “determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground” is directed to an abstract idea of mental process as described above. Limitation further recites enabling the action based on this determination. However, the claim does not recite any particular action neither does it describe provide any mechanism for enabling the action. In absence of any details regarding the particularity of the action and any mechanism for executing the action, the limitation does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 2 further recites, The method of claim 1, wherein generating the graph comprises representing power sources, busses, and ground terminals as nodes in the graph. This limitation is also directed to a mental process as human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating a graph that comprises representing power sources, busses, and ground terminals as nodes in the graph.
Claim 3 further recites, The method of claim 2, wherein generating the graph comprises representing circuit breakers, disconnects, and ground switches as connections between the nodes in the graph. This limitation is also directed to a mental process as human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating a graph that represents circuit breakers, disconnects, and ground switches as connections between the nodes in the graph.
Claim 4 further recites, The method of claim 1,determining a change to the topology of the power delivery system and dynamically adjusting the graph to reflect the change to the topology. This limitation is also directed to a mental process as human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining a change to the topology of the power delivery system and dynamically adjusting the graph to reflect the change to the topology.
Claim 5 further recites, The method of claim 4, wherein determining the change to the topology comprises determining that a circuit component was added to the power delivery system. This limitation is also directed to a mental process as human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining that a circuit component was added to the power delivery system.
Claim 6 further recites, The method of claim 4, wherein determining the change to the topology comprises determining that a circuit component was removed from the power delivery system. This limitation is also directed to a mental process as human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining that a circuit component was removed from the power delivery system.
Claim 7 further recites, The method of claim 1, wherein generating the graph comprises displaying a visual representation of the graph on an electronic display. This limitation is directed to using a component (an electronic display) to perform what is does in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to display). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 8 further recites, The method of claim 7, comprising highlighting or color-coding the visual representation based on determining whether the first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving the current. Without any specific limitation reciting the determination process under broadest reasonable interpretation human mind is capable of determining whether the first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving the current. Human mind is also capable of color coding a visual representation based on the above determination. Simply using a computer display the color coded visualization amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 9 further recites, The method of claim 8, comprising highlighting or color-coding the first disconnect switch green in response to determining that the first disconnect switch is not receiving the current. Without any specific limitation reciting the determination process under broadest reasonable interpretation human mind is capable of determining that the first disconnect switch is not receiving the current. Human mind is also capable of color coding a visual representation based on the above determination. Simply using a computer display the color coded visualization amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 10 further recites, The method of claim 8, comprising color-coding the first disconnect switch red in response to determining that the first disconnect switch is receiving the current. Without any specific limitation reciting the determination process under broadest reasonable interpretation human mind is capable of determining that the first disconnect switch is receiving the current. Human mind is also capable of color coding a the first disconnect switch red based on the above determination. Simply using a computer display the color coded visualization amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 11 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system. Claim 11 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 11 recites additional limitations, A power delivery system, comprising: a plurality of disconnect switches; a plurality of power sources; a remote terminal unit, the remote terminal unit comprising a processor configured to: determine a topology of a power delivery system. With regards to limitation, determine a topology of a power delivery system, without any limitation specifying the process of determining the topology, human mind with pen and paper is capable of determining a topology of a power delivery system. Therefore this limitation also recites an abstract idea of the mental process group. Using a Limitations directed to, power delivery system, comprising: a plurality of disconnect switches; a plurality of power sources, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of power delivery systems. These limitations do not alter or affect the how the steps identified as abstract ideas are performed. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). With regards to, a remote terminal unit, the remote terminal unit comprising a processor, merely recites computer components as a tool to execute the abstract idea. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12 further recites, The electric power system of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to generate a graph comprising nodes and edges coupling the nodes, wherein the nodes represent power sources, busses, or ground terminals and the edges comprise circuit breakers, disconnect switches, and ground switches. This limitation is also directed to a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. Human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating a graph comprising nodes representing power sources, busses, or ground terminals and edges comprising circuit breakers. Merely reciting a processor as a tool to perform the process does not take it out of the mental process grouping. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 13 further recites, The electric power system of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to provide the graph to an electronic display for visualization. This limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation is directed to data transmission and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have transmitting data (OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 14 further recites, The electric power system of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to highlight or color code the visualization based on whether performing the action will result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source of the plurality of power sources to ground. This limitation is also directed to a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. Human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining whether performing the action will result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source of the plurality of power sources to ground and highlight or color code the visualization based on the determination. Merely reciting a processor as a tool to perform the process does not take it out of the mental process grouping. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 15 further recites, The electric power system of claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to highlight or color code the second disconnect switch green based on determining that the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground. This limitation is also directed to a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. Human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining that the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground and highlight or color code the second disconnect switch green based on the determination. Merely reciting a processor as a tool to perform the process does not take it out of the mental process grouping. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 16 further recites, The electric power delivery system of claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to remove a highlight or color code the second disconnect switch red based on determining that the action will result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground. This limitation is also directed to a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. Human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining that the action will result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground and remove a highlight or color code the second disconnect switch red based on the determination. Merely reciting a processor as a tool to perform the process does not take it out of the mental process grouping. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 17 further recites, The electric power delivery system of claim 11, wherein the action comprises closing the second disconnect switch. This limitation provides a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how function of closing the second disconnect switch is performed or any mechanism that can perform this function. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 18 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine. Claim 18 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 18 recites additional limitations, A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions configured to cause a processor to: in response to determining that closing the second circuit breaker will result in the second circuit breaker coupling the power source to ground, blocking the second circuit breaker from closing. With regards to, A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions and the processor, this limitation merely recites computer components as a tool to execute the abstract idea. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim also recites, “in response to determining that closing the second circuit breaker will result in the second circuit breaker coupling the power source to ground, blocking the second circuit breaker from closing”. “determining that closing the second circuit breaker will result in the second circuit breaker coupling the power source to ground” is directed to an abstract idea since in absence of any specific limitation describing the determination process, human mind is capable of determining whether closing a circuit breaker will result in the circuit breaker coupling the power source to ground. Limitation further recites, blocking the second circuit breaker from closing based on the above determination. However, the claim does not recite any details regarding how the second circuit breaker is blocked from closing and neither does it describe provide any mechanism for blocking the circuit braker from closing. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".(See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 19 further recites, The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instruction are configured to cause the processor to determine that a third circuit breaker is associated with a faulty status. This limitation is also directed to a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. Without any specific limitation reciting the determination process, human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining that a third circuit breaker is associated with a faulty status. Merely reciting a processor as a tool to perform the process does not take it out of the mental process grouping. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 20 further recites, The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instruction are configured to cause the processor to: wherein the instruction are configured to cause the processor to: force the faulty status to "open" and determine whether the first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current and determine whether closing the second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground; force the faulty status to "closed" and determine whether the first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current and determine whether closing the second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground; and based on determining that there is not difference between forcing the faulty status to "open" or "closed", determining that the faulty status is redundant. This limitation is also directed to a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. Limitation regarding forcing the faulty status to “open” and “closed” is indefinite and for the sake of compact prosecution the limitation is being interpreted as considering the third circuit breaker associated with the faulty status as “open” or “closed” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above). Human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of considering the third circuit breaker associated with the faulty status as “open” and determining whether the first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current and determining whether closing the second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground. Similarly human mind is capable of, considering the third circuit breaker associated with the faulty status as “closed” and determining whether the first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current and determining whether closing the second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground. Also human mind is capable of determining that the faulty status is redundant based on determining that there is no difference between considering the third circuit breaker associated with the faulty status as “open” or “closed”. Merely reciting a processor as a tool to perform the process does not take it out of the mental process grouping. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 recites,
A method comprising:
receiving a representation of a topology of a power delivery system;
generating a graph representing interconnection between devices in the power delivery system;
determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current;
in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and
in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
A thorough search has been conducted for the subject matter with the most relevant prior art found to be discussed.
Khatib (US20180034317A1) in ¶0112 teaches, Topology module 442 may be configured to identify nodes, operational modes, islanded systems, grid-connections, and the like in the electrical power generation and distribution system. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
Bartlett (US20150244171A1) in ¶0037 teaches, system 100 may determine an overall system topology. In some embodiments, monitoring of system topology may include determining which sources are associated with which nodes in system 100. State changes may be characterized by changes in the topology that relate to specified interconnection points. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
Schweitzer (US20140100702A1) ¶0078 teaches, Topology module 462 may include instructions to determine a topology of at least a portion of the electric power delivery system. The topology module 462 may receive information concerning the topology of the electric power delivery system from, for example, a user, other distributed controllers or coordination controllers, or the like. The topology information may be limited by the user to include a portion of the electric power delivery system topology. The topology module 462 may include instructions to modify the stored topology information based on state. For example, if the distributed controller receives information concerning open or closed status of a switch, the topology module 462 may be configured to update its topology based on the received information concerning the open or closed status of the switch. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
LUN (CN 109830954 B) in Abstract teaches, a topology layered identification method suitable for automatic generation of a power grid visual simulation model, which comprises a data table in source data, a full topology structure is generated by splicing topology information of the data table, branches in the full topology structure are deconstructed, and a single endpoint processing element is processed to obtain a full topology information table T and a node information table F. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
Hutchinson (Interlocking in large electricity-supply substations- a fundamental approach) teaches, interlocking for safe switching operation. It teaches various switching schemes, however it doesn’t explicitly teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
Dhakal (COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN OF SUBSTATION SWITCHING SCHEMES) in page 50 section 4.3.2.2 Closing Operation teaches, A live line must not be grounded. Grounding of a live circuit initiates a ground fault resulting in the flow of excessive currents. This could damage the equipment and jeopardize the safety of personnel involved in grounding. A circuit breaker must not be closed if one of its terminals is connected to a source and the other is connected to ground. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
Silverman (US20040070896A1) in ¶0048 teaches, Table 1 also shows that a protection device 12 incorporating electrical circuit 20 provides electrocution hazard protection where the ground wire from the electrical source 28 has been omitted or left unconnected, that is, where the putative ground wire 19 of the electrical source 28 is in the electrically open condition. For example, in condition 19, first sensor coil 42 senses that the putative ground wire 19 of the electrical source 28 is electrically open and causes normally open first contact switch 42a to remain open, thus precluding electrical continuity between the putative hot wire 19 of the electrical source 28 and the hot wire 33 of the appliance 4. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
Daly (US20240429715A1) in ¶0079 teaches, generating prediction data that characterizes one or more fault conditions of the electrical power grid. The type of fault can include one or more of: a ground fault or a phase-to-ground fault. ¶0082 teaches, the inverter adjusts an operational setting of the inverter based on the prediction data. However it doesn’t teach, determining whether a first disconnect switch in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determining whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enabling the action.
No other art could be found which alone teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore allowable over prior art.
Claims 2-10 depends on claim 1 and therefore are also allowable over prior art due to their dependency.
Claim 11 recites, A power delivery system, comprising:
a plurality of disconnect switches;
a plurality of power sources;
a remote terminal unit, the remote terminal unit comprising a processor configured to:
determine a topology of a power delivery system;
generate a graph representing interconnection between devices in the power delivery system;
determine whether a first disconnect switch of the plurality of disconnect switches in the power delivery system is receiving a current;
in response to determining that the first disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determine whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch of the plurality of disconnect switches coupling a power source to ground; and
in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enable the action.
None of the prior art listed above teaches, determine whether a first disconnect switch of the plurality of disconnect switches in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the first disconnect switch is not receiving a current, determine whether performing an action results in a second disconnect switch of the plurality of disconnect switches coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that performing the action will not result in the second disconnect switch coupling the power source to ground, enable the action.
No other art could be found which alone teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 11 is therefore allowable over prior art.
Claims 12-17 depends on claim 11 and therefore are also allowable over prior art due to their dependency.
Claim 18 recites, A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions configured to cause a processor to:
generate a graph representing interconnection between devices in the power delivery system;
determine whether a first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current;
in response to determining that the first circuit breaker is not receiving a current, determine whether closing a second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground; and
in response to determining that closing the second circuit breaker will result in the second circuit breaker coupling the power source to ground, blocking the second circuit breaker from closing.
None of the prior art listed above teaches, determine whether a first circuit breaker in the power delivery system is receiving a current; in response to determining that the first circuit breaker is not receiving a current, determine whether closing a second circuit breaker results in the second circuit breaker coupling a power source to ground; and in response to determining that closing the second circuit breaker will result in the second circuit breaker coupling the power source to ground, blocking the second circuit breaker from closing.
No other art could be found which alone teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Claim 18 is therefore allowable over prior art.
Claims 19-20 depends on claim 18 and therefore are also allowable over prior art due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116