DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication filed on 12-01-2023. The claims 1- 20 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 13, & 20 is/are in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1- 4, 10-14, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Danmayr (WO 2023030705 A11). The cited paragraphs of Danmayr are from the attached machine translated document.
Regarding claim 1, Danmayr teaches a computer-implemented method [actions performed by “the central control unit 5 of the power supply network 1” that executes “control algorithm shown schematically in Fig. 4”] for managing an electrical grid [Fig. 1, “local electrical supply network 1 has a central control unit 5”], the computer-implemented method comprising: (Figs. 1, 4, [006, 055, 066]);
at a node [“excess current value for each superior distribution node 2”] in an electrical grid topology [“a hierarchy level of the supply network via power lines of the supply network and one or more subordinate nodes located in a directly below hierarchy level”; e.g., “power supply network 1” having various nodes at J = 0, J=1, J = 2, J= 3] including a plurality of nodes [distribution nodes 2s, controllable nodes 3s having “dynamic loads” like vehicle batteries, and non-controllable nodes 4s at different hierarchy levels], identifying [Fig. 4, steps S1-S2: the control unit 5 determining “a respective node” needs “electrical current to be reduced”] a power output deviation [“excess current” as part of comparing the current consumption with “current limit value”] from a target [“existing current limit or limit for a currently flowing current.”] (Fig. 4, [036, 041, 049, 056, 064]); and
responsive to identifying the power output deviation, traversing nodes below a control node [one of the node 2 or 3s out of the nodes having communication functionalities with the control unit 5] in the electrical grid topology and adjusting [step S4 -S11: “iteratively adjusted across all hierarchy levels of the supply network 1 up to the end nodes 3,4 of the local supply network 1 until”] power output at each traversed node until [“subsequent step S5, it is checked whether the calculation has been performed for all subordinate nodes of the node in question or not”] at least one terminal node is reached (Fig. 4, [048-049, 059-063]).
Danmayr teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
446
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Danmayr teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, further comprising: performing the traversing [“step S5, it is checked whether the calculation has been performed for all subordinate nodes… process returns from step S5 to step S3,”] and the adjusting until all terminal nodes are reached ([021, 048, 060]).
Regarding claim 3, Danmayr teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the power output deviation from the target includes at least one of: (i) a power output violation [“excess current value for each superior distribution node 2”] and (ii) a deviation from a user-specified value ([049, 064]).
Regarding claim 4, Danmayr teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, further comprising: before identifying the power output deviation, identifying the control node [“distribution node” 2s can be controllable unlike the nodes 4s] in the electrical grid topology (Per figs. 1, 4 & associated texts like para. [082] Danmayr clarifies that the control unit 5 knows the position of the “distribution node 2” in the hierarchy before performing adjustment).
Regarding claim 10, Danmayr teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the node is the control node (Fig. 1 & associated texts: The distribution node like item 2-1-1 can be controlled by the controller 5 because of its communication capability).
Regarding claim 11, Danmayr teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting power output includes: at a given traversed node, adjusting power output based on at least one resource [vehicle battery of the nodes 3s like item 3-1-1 and 3-1-2] of at least one node below the given traversed node in the electrical grid topology [network 1] (Fig. 1, 4 & associated texts).
Regarding claim 12, Danmayr teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 11, wherein adjusting power output based on the at least one resource [the “automatically updates or sets the current limits of the subordinate nodes 2, 3, 4”, “current limit value of the respective higher-level distribution node” for the items 3s] includes adjusting power output based on at least one of: a power output increase [activating of the loads at nodes 3s or 4s] margin of the at least one resource and a power output decrease [deactivating of the loads at nodes 4s/3s] margin of the at least one resource ([020, 049], Figs. 1, 4 & associated texts).
Regarding claims 13- 14, Danmayr teaches claimed a computer-based system for the similar reasons set forth above in claims 1 & 4. Please note that “the central control unit 5 of the power supply network “ is mapped with claimed “computer-based system” with a processor and a memory.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Danmayr teaches a non-transitory computer program product [memory used by the “central control unit 5”] for managing an electrical grid, the non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium with computer code instructions stored thereon, the computer code instructions being configured, when executed by a processor, to cause an apparatus associated with the processor to: (Fig. 1 [049]);
at a node [e.g., item 2-2-1 being in imbalance condition due to change in power consumption at lower level nodes such as items 3-3-4] in an electrical grid topology [“supply network 1”] including a plurality of nodes [superior and subordinate nodes in tree structure], identify a power output deviation from a target; and responsive to identifying the power output deviation, traverse nodes below [“one or more subordinate nodes located in a directly below hierarchy level (j+1) of the supply network 1 are iteratively adjusted”] a control node in the electrical grid topology and adjust [“are iteratively adjusted across all hierarchy levels of the supply network 1”] power output at each traversed node until at least one terminal node is reached (Figs. 1, 4, [048-049, 059-063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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) 5- 6 & 15- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danmayr et al. (WO 2023030705 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20230361565 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Danmayr teaches its central control unit 5 to identify the control node in the electrical grid topology [“local supply network 1”] as set forth above. See para. 048.
However, Danmayr may not teach the identifying the control node in the electrical grid topology includes: traversing nodes above a first terminal node in the electrical grid topology until a first node meeting at least one criterion is reached; and identifying the first node meeting the at least one criterion as the control node.
Wang in the same field of power distribution in an electrical grid teaches a method comprises: ([021]);
identifying the control node in the electrical grid topology, wherein identifying the control node in the electrical grid topology includes: traversing [“then traverses in a bottom-up manner with an objective of determining the aggregated load under each line, so that if one line is taken out (N-1 contingency), load loss can be immediately retrieved.”] nodes above a first terminal node in the electrical grid topology until a first node meeting at least one criterion is reached; and identifying the first node meeting the at least one criterion (covers every possible criteria) as the control node ([032- 035]).
Danmayr and Wang are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor, namely a processor traversing nodes of a tree representing an electrical grid. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Danmayr’s central control unit 5 by traversing nodes above a first terminal node in the electrical grid topology until a first node meeting at least one criterion is reached and identifying the first node meeting the at least one criterion as the control node as in Wang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to immediately identify node with power deviation (Wang [032]). Furthermore, Wang teaches an exemplary technique for Wang about in which direction (leaf to root node—bottom-up) its nodes can be traversed to check the excess current value for each superior distribution node 2 (Danmayr [049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang and Danmayr for the benefit of quick correcting of the deviation at a node of the electrical grid topology and to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Danmayr in view of Wang teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 5, wherein the at least one criterion includes the first node being a first regulation point [item 2-2-1] and the first node being in a first power output deviation and an ancestor node [root-node 2-0] of the first node being a second regulation point and the ancestor node not being in a second power output deviation (Danmayr, Fig. 1 & Wang [032]).
Regarding claims 15- 16, Danmayr in view of Wang teaches/suggests inventions of these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claims 5- 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7- 9 & 17- 19 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. Specifically, these claims recite novel and non-obvious subject matter (identifying a control node in the electrical grid topology with specific criterion) over prior arts of the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ansari et al. (US 20140249688 A1) teaches dressing the bidirectional power flow conflict incurred by power surpluses produced from a number of households' on-location (Abstract).
2) Fan et al. (US 20120078430 A1) teaches power distribution system that dynamically allocates power due to changes in power load ([091]).
3) Gulati (US 20130326064 A1) teaches a similar control technique (“allocated level-by-level down”) set forth in para. [026] of the specification ([059]).
4) DALL'ANESE (US 20180138711 A1) incentivize DERs to adjust the power output to achieve global voltage regulation and ancillary service requests (1037]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 filing date: 2022-05-31; see MPEP 2154.01(a) WIPO Published Applications.