DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s response filed on 12/29/2025.
Claim 1-8 and 10-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims have been considered, however they are considered moot. An updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection to claims have been considered, however they are considered moot. An updated 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection will address applicant’s amendments and arguments.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-10), the system (claims 11-17), and the non-transitory computer read-able storage medium (claims 18-20) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of estimating outage repair time based on various parameters and variables which can be categorized as “Mental process” and “Mathematical concept”. The abstract idea can be categorized as “mental process” because it is directed concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or by the aid of a pen and/or paper and within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2106.04(a). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A computer-implemented method performed by a computing system, the computer-implemented method comprising: determining, based on outage data associated with a plurality of electrical outages on an electrical distribution system, an estimated number of crew hours to repair the plurality of the electrical outages using the computing system by determining the crew hours to repair each of the plurality of the electrical outages and summing the crew hours to repair each of the plurality of the electrical outages for all of the plurality of the electrical outages using the computing system; determining, based on the outage data and the estimated number of crew hours to repair the plurality of the electrical outages, a schedule for repairing the plurality of the electrical outages and determining, based on crew availability data and the schedule for repairing the plurality of the electrical outages, an estimated repair time (ERT) associated with each of the electrical outages using the computing system, wherein the ERT for each of the electrical outages is determined by determining, based on the schedule for repairing the plurality of the electrical outages, a scheduled number of hours to repair the electrical outage, calculating a cumulative number of the crew hours worked as a function of time based on the crew availability data, and determining a time at which the scheduled number of hours to repair the electrical outage matches the cumulative number of the crew hours worked..
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to computing system and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification [0030] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: computing system and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification ([0030]) describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concept, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kathy Ball (US 2014/0257913 A1, hereinafter “Ball”) in view of David Lubkeman (US 2005/0096856 A1, hereinafter “Lubkeman”) in view of David L. Caulfield (US 2002/0065702 A1, hereinafter “Caulfield”).
Claim 1/11/18
Ball teaches:
A computer-implemented method performed by a computing system, the computer-implemented method ([0005] The system includes, but is not limited to, a processor and a computer-readable medium operably coupled to the processor. The computer-readable medium has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform the method. [0020] The one or more computing devices of service outage planning system 102 may include computers) comprising: determining, based on outage data associated with a plurality of electrical outages [...], an estimated number of crew hours to repair the plurality of electrical outages using the computing system([0032] Service outage planning system 102 may include database 222 stored on computer-readable medium 206 or can access database 222 either through a direct connection or through network 110 using communication interface 204. Database 222 is a data repository for storm response system 100. [0051] In an operation 600, previous service outage data is received. As an example, the previous service outage data may be selected by a user using a user interface window and received by service outage planning application 220. [0052] the previous service outage data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the previous service outage data may include service outage source location information such as a town identifier, a latitude, a longitude, and an altitude, a type of repair performed previously, a date of the outage, an indicator of a cause of the outage, transformer loading, a type of transformer (overhead versus underground), fuses, voltage and associated load information, previous outage information from historical storms, etc. at each service outage source location. [0053] In an operation 602, characteristics associated with the failures are determined. For example, the previous service outage data may be analyzed to identify the characteristics that correlate with the failures. [0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time, T.sub.R, is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. The examiner note for function of crew time information as disclosed in [0073] the responder data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the data may include a crew name, a crew maximum shift time, crew shift time data, a number of crew members in the crew. The crew maximum shift time indicates the amount of time that the crew can work, for example, in a 24-hour period. Crew shift time data may further include any other shift timing requirements such as an earliest start time, a latest stop time, a number of breaks and the duration of each break, a time-off between work schedules, etc.)).
determining, based on the outage data and the estimated number of crew hours to repair the plurality of electrical outages, a schedule for repairing the plurality of electrical outages([0083] In an operation 802, crew shift data is initialized. For example, a large number of crews may be assigned to work in the service outage coverage area though different groups of the crews may be organized into different shifts. Utilities use internal and external crews to restore power to customers after outages. Information from each of the crews is collected in terms of the numbers of hours available to work with consideration for union and non-union work requirements. Additionally, the skill-set and types of crews, such as a 2-person crew, a 3-person crew, etc. is collected for outage planning and optimization. A crew shift model may be initialized to identify the plurality of crews assigned to each shift. The time is updated for start of shift, and the crews are given a starting location. The skills of the crews may be assigned to each crew);
and determining, based on crew availability data and the schedule for repairing the plurality of electrical outages, an estimated repair time (ERT) associated with each of the electrical outages using the computing system ([0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time, T.sub.R, is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. The examiner note or function of crew time information as disclosed in [0073] the responder data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the data may include a crew name, a crew maximum shift time, crew shift time data, a number of crew members in the crew. The crew maximum shift time indicates the amount of time that the crew can work, for example, in a 24-hour period. Crew shift time data may further include any other shift timing requirements such as an earliest start time, a latest stop time, a number of breaks and the duration of each break, a time-off between work schedules, etc.)).
While Ball teaches [0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. The examiner notes the function of crew time information as disclosed in [0073] the responder data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the data may include a crew name, a crew maximum shift time, crew shift time data, a number of crew members in the crew. The crew maximum shift time indicates the amount of time that the crew can work, for example, in a 24-hour period. Crew shift time data may further include any other shift timing requirements such as an earliest start time, a latest stop time, a number of breaks and the duration of each break, a time-off between work schedules, etc. Ball does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference Lubkeman teaches:
electrical outages on an electrical distribution system ([0017] A method for electric utility storm outage management includes determining an interconnection model of an electric utility power circuit);
wherein the ERT associated with each of the electrical outages is determined by: determining, based on the schedule for repairing the plurality of the electrical outages, a scheduled number of hours to repair the electrical outage([0016]determining a restoration sequence (schedule) based on the damage location and the interconnection model, and determining a predicted time to restore power to a particular customer of the electric utility based on the restoration sequence, the interconnection model, and the location of the damage. [0147] Fig. 10 s shown, display element 1001 indicates that 5000 customers are experiencing a power outage, 5 maintenance crews are currently assigned to substation 1, the worst case predicted time to power restoration (ETR) is 2 days, the average ETR is 1 day).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball to incorporate the teachings of Lubkeman to include the ERT associated with each of the electrical outages is determined by: determining, based on the schedule for repairing the plurality of the electrical outages, a scheduled number of hours to repair the electrical outage as part of ERT determination taught by Ball. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations related to an electrical outage and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
While Ball teaches [0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. The examiner notes the function of crew time information as disclosed in [0073] the responder data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the data may include a crew name, a crew maximum shift time, crew shift time data, a number of crew members in the crew. The crew maximum shift time indicates the amount of time that the crew can work, for example, in a 24-hour period. Crew shift time data may further include any other shift timing requirements such as an earliest start time, a latest stop time, a number of breaks and the duration of each break, a time-off between work schedules, etc. Ball does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference Caulfield teaches:
by determining the crew hours to repair each of the plurality of the (service work order) and summing the crew hours to repair each of the plurality of the (service work order) for all of the plurality of the (service work order) (Caulfield [0026] The scheduling function now looks for the first available technician. [0028] The time blocks computed for technicians B2, P3 and C1 are now added together, for a total of 8.0 labor hours);
calculating, based on the crew availability data, a cumulative number of crew hours worked as a function of time (Caulfield [0026] The scheduling function now looks for the first available technician. [0028] The time blocks computed for technicians B2, P3 and C1 are now added together, for a total of 8.0 labor hours. This time is added to the projected starting time of 11:12 a.m. Friday. Keeping in mind an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday, 1-hour lunch breaks, twice-daily 0.3-hour coffee breaks, and non-working weekends, it will be seen that the scheduling function 16 will project completion of the repair job at 11:48 a.m. on Monday, October 9);
and determining a time at which the scheduled number of hours to repair the [service] matches the cumulative number of crew hours worked ([0028] The time blocks computed for technicians B2, P3 and C1 are now added together, for a total of 8.0 labor hours. This time is added to the projected starting time of 11:12 a.m. Friday. Keeping in mind an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday, 1-hour lunch breaks, twice-daily 0.3-hour coffee breaks, and non-working weekends, it will be seen that the scheduling function 16 will project completion of the repair job at 11:48 a.m. on Monday, October 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball and Lubkeman to incorporate the teachings of Caulfield to include determining the crew hours to repair each of the plurality of the (service work order) and summing the crew hours to repair each of the plurality of the (service work order) for all of the plurality of the (service work order), calculating, based on the crew availability data, a cumulative number of crew hours worked as a function of time, and determining a time at which the scheduled number of hours to repair the [service] matches the cumulative number of crew hours worked as part of ERT determination taught by Ball. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations related to an electrical outage and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
Claim 3/13/20
Ball teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the crew availability data comprises: crew start work and stop work times, a number of crews working at any given time, and an average work crew hours capacity ([0073] the responder data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the data may include a crew name, a crew equipment type indicator, a crew skill indicator, a crew maximum shift time, crew shift time data, a number of crew members in the crew(a number of crews working at any given time). The crew maximum shift time indicates the amount of time that the crew can work, for example, in a 24-hour period. Crew shift time data may further include any other shift timing requirements such as an earliest start time, a latest stop time, a number of breaks and the duration of each break, a time-off between work schedules, etc. An example dataset may include from a few to hundreds of fields or more and from a few to tens of thousands of records or more without limitation. Examiner Notes: The shift timing data described in [0073] defines expected number of work hours that a crew can provide during a work period. These shift timing parameters represent an example of an average work crew hours capacity, because they define the effective labor hours a crew can contribute within a define time window after accounting for operational constraints).
Claim 4/14
While Ball teaches [0051] In an operation 600, previous service outage data is received. As an example, the previous service outage data may be selected by a user using a user interface window and received by service outage planning application 220. [0052] the previous service outage data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the previous service outage data may include service outage source location information such as a town identifier, a latitude, a longitude, and an altitude, a type of repair performed previously, a date of the outage, an indicator of a cause of the outage, transformer loading, a type of transformer (overhead versus underground), fuses, voltage and associated load information, previous outage information from historical storms, etc. at each service outage source location. [0053] In an operation 602, characteristics associated with the failures are determined. For example, the previous service outage data may be analyzed to identify the characteristics that correlate with the failures. [0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time, T.sub.R, is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. The examiner notes or function of crew time information as disclosed in [0073] the responder data is organized as a plurality of fields for a plurality of records. Merely for illustration, the data may include a crew name, a crew maximum shift time, crew shift time data, a number of crew members in the crew. The crew maximum shift time indicates the amount of time that the crew can work, for example, in a 24-hour period. Crew shift time data may further include any other shift timing requirements such as an earliest start time, a latest stop time, a number of breaks and the duration of each break, a time-off between work schedules, etc.). Ball does not explicitly teach the following; however, analogues reference Lubkeman teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the estimated number of crew hours is determined based on: a damage assessment associated with each of the electrical outages, a type of damage associated with each of the electrical outages, a predetermined estimate of the time to repair each of the electrical outages, and a reserve hours factor ([0087] Maintenance crew prediction engine 130 receives the damage prediction (or an indication of the types of damages predicted) that was determined by damage prediction engine 120 (or storm outage engine 110) and determines a predicted maintenance crew requirement [0147] Fig. 10 s shown, display element 1001 indicates that 5000 customers are experiencing a power outage, 5 maintenance crews are currently assigned to substation 1, the worst case predicted time to power restoration (ETR) is 2 days(reserve hours factor), the average ETR is 1 day(a predetermined estimate of the time to repair each of the electrical outages)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball to incorporate the teachings of Lubkeman to include the estimated number of crew hours is determined based on: a damage assessment associated with each of the electrical outages, a type of damage associated with each of the electrical outages, a predetermined estimate of the time to repair each of the electrical outages, and a reserve hours factor as part of ERT determination system taught by Ball. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations related to an electrical outage and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
Claim 8
Ball teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computing system comprises processors, storage devices, and input/output interfaces([0005] The system includes, but is not limited to, a processor and a computer-readable medium operably coupled to the processor. The computer-readable medium has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform the method. [0029] Processor 208 operably couples with input interface 200, with output interface 202, with communication interface 204, and with computer-readable medium 206 to receive, to send, and to process information. Processor 208 may retrieve a set of instructions from a permanent memory device and copy the instructions in an executable form to a temporary memory device that is generally some form of RAM).
Claim 10
Ball teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising repeating any one or more of determining the estimated number of crew hours, the schedule for repairing the plurality of electrical outages, or the estimated repair time (ERT) ([0116] In an operation 714, a determination is made concerning whether or not updated crew data, updated outage data, updated repair time data, and/or updated travel time data is received or identified. For example, additional service outage source locations may be reported, service outage source locations may be identified as completed with a shorter or a longer repair time than estimated, roads may be reopened, etc. Updated crew data may be received from service outage planning system 102 using communication interface 204 and fourth communication interface 506. [0117] In operation 716, the appropriate data is updated. For example, actual repair times are defined for service outage source locations when the repair is completed. A remaining plurality of service outage source locations may be determined based on the updated data. A current crew location for each crew of the plurality of crews may be determined from the updated data).
Claims 2, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball in view of Lubkeman in view of Caulfield, as applied in claim 1, 11, and 18, and further in view of Jeff Tolnar (US 2008/0231114 A1, hereinafter “Tolnar”) in view of Dale Robert McMullin (US 2012/0253539 A1, hereinafter “McMullin”).
Claim 2/12/19
Ball teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the outage data comprises: a number of customers affected by each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages, ([0067] the outage information may include service outage source location information (a town identifier, a latitude, a longitude, and/or an altitude), a number of affected customers associated with each service outage source location, and/or a type of repair to perform at each service outage source location. An example dataset may include from a few to hundreds of fields or more and from a few to tens of thousands of records or more without limitation).
While Ball teaches [0067] the outage information may include service outage source location information (a town identifier, a latitude, a longitude, and/or an altitude), a number of affected customers associated with each service outage source location, and/or a type of repair to perform at each service outage source location. An example dataset may include from a few to hundreds of fields or more and from a few to tens of thousands of records or more without limitation. Ball does not explicitly teach the following; however, analogues reference Tolnar teaches:
a length of each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages, a priority status of one or more customers affected by each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages ([0031] This profile can be based upon information pertaining to the estimated duration of the outage. This profile may include customers having lower levels of priority, as well as the highest priority customers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball, Lubkeman, and Caulfield to incorporate the teachings of Tolnar to include a length of each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages and a priority status of one or more customers affected by each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages as part of outage information taught by Ball. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations related to an electrical outage and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
While Ball teaches [0067] the outage information may include service outage source location information (a town identifier, a latitude, a longitude, and/or an altitude), a number of affected customers associated with each service outage source location, and/or a type of repair to perform at each service outage source location. An example dataset may include from a few to hundreds of fields or more and from a few to tens of thousands of records or more without limitation. Ball does not explicitly teach the following; however, analogues reference McMullin teaches:
information indicating which of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages have been electrically isolated from the electrical distribution system ([0026] identification information for areas of the power distribution network that will be isolated and/or de-energized for a given time period. [0054] information associated with one or more isolated or de-energized areas of the power distribution network may be communicated to a suitable asset management system,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball, Lubkeman, Caulfield, and Tolna to incorporate the teachings of McMullin to include information indicating which of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages have been electrically isolated from the electrical distribution system as part of outage information taught by Ball. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations related to an electrical outage and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
Claims 2, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball in view of Lubkeman in view of Caulfield, as applied in claim 1, 11, and 18, and further in view of Tolnar
Claim 5/15
Ball teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the schedule for repairing the plurality of electrical outages is determined based on: a number of customers affected by each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages, ([0083] In an operation 802, crew shift data is initialized. For example, a large number of crews may be assigned to work in the service outage coverage area though different groups of the crews may be organized into different shifts. Utilities use internal and external crews to restore power to customers after outages. Information from each of the crews is collected in terms of the numbers of hours available to work with consideration for union and non-union work requirements. Additionally, the skill-set and types of crews, such as a 2-person crew, a 3-person crew, etc. is collected for outage planning and optimization. A crew shift model may be initialized to identify the plurality of crews assigned to each shift. The time is updated for start of shift, and the crews are given a starting location. The skills of the crews may be assigned to each crew).
While Ball teaches [0083] In an operation 802, crew shift data is initialized. For example, a large number of crews may be assigned to work in the service outage coverage area though different groups of the crews may be organized into different shifts. Utilities use internal and external crews to restore power to customers after outages. Information from each of the crews is collected in terms of the numbers of hours available to work with consideration for union and non-union work requirements. Additionally, the skill-set and types of crews, such as a 2-person crew, a 3-person crew, etc. is collected for outage planning and optimization. A crew shift model may be initialized to identify the plurality of crews assigned to each shift. The time is updated for start of shift, and the crews are given a starting location. The skills of the crews may be assigned to each crew. Ball does not explicitly teach the following; however, analogues reference Lubkeman teaches:
and the estimated number of crew hours to repair the plurality of electrical outages ([0087] Maintenance crew prediction engine 130 receives the damage prediction (or an indication of the types of damages predicted) that was determined by damage prediction engine 120 (or storm outage engine 110) and determines a predicted maintenance crew requirement [0147] Fig. 10 s shown, display element 1001 indicates that 5000 customers are experiencing a power outage, 5 maintenance crews are currently assigned to substation 1, the worst case predicted time to power restoration (ETR) is 2 days(reserve hours factor), the average ETR is 1 day( estimated of the time to repair each of the electrical outages)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball to incorporate the teachings of Lubkeman to include the estimated number of crew hours to repair the plurality of electrical outages as part of ERT determination system taught by Ball. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations related to an electrical outage and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
While Ball teaches [0083] In an operation 802, crew shift data is initialized. For example, a large number of crews may be assigned to work in the service outage coverage area though different groups of the crews may be organized into different shifts. Utilities use internal and external crews to restore power to customers after outages. Information from each of the crews is collected in terms of the numbers of hours available to work with consideration for union and non-union work requirements. Additionally, the skill-set and types of crews, such as a 2-person crew, a 3-person crew, etc. is collected for outage planning and optimization. A crew shift model may be initialized to identify the plurality of crews assigned to each shift. The time is updated for start of shift, and the crews are given a starting location. The skills of the crews may be assigned to each crew. Ball does not explicitly teach the following; however, analogues reference Tolnar teaches:
a length of each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages, a priority status of one or more customers affected by each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages ([0031] This profile can be based upon information pertaining to the estimated duration of the outage. This profile may include customers having lower levels of priority, as well as the highest priority customers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball, Lubkeman, and Caulfield to incorporate the teachings of Tolnar to include a length of each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages and a priority status of one or more customers affected by each of the electrical outages of the plurality of electrical outages as part of outage information taught by Ball. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations related to an electrical outage and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball in view of Lubkeman in view of Caulfield, as applied in claim 1 and 11, and further in view of Joan A Storch (US 5, 920,846, hereinafter “Storch”).
Claim 6/16
While Ball teaches [0082] In an operation 800, variables are created and initialized for service outage planning application 220. A service outage coverage area for which the crew is assigned, the starting time for the outage metric, and the initial outage information. [0082] In an operation 800, variables are created and initialized for service outage planning application 220. A service outage coverage area for which the crew is assigned, the starting time for the outage metric, and the initial outage information. 0084] In an operation 804, a number of customers restored per a predefined time period for pairs of locations of the plurality of locations is calculated based on the number of customers restored by the repair, the estimated travel time, and the estimated repair time. [0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time, T.sub.R, is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. Ball does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference Storch teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the schedule for repairing the plurality of electrical outages is determined by calculating a weight associated with each of the electrical outages and prioritizing the schedule based on the weight (Col. 25 lines 43-50 After establishing the job type, WFA/DO 101 prioritizes or weights the service order to determine the order of processing and dispatching based upon the urgency with which the service order should be completed. For example, higher priority levels are typically associated with emergency situations or missed appointments, or can be established such that all service orders relating to business customers are processed before residential customers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball, Lubkeman, and Caulfield to incorporate the teachings of Storch to include weight associated with each of the electrical outages is calculated based on any one or more of: a number of customers affected by the electrical outage, a length of the electrical outage, a priority status of one or more customers affected by the electrical outage, and the estimated number of crew hours to repair the plurality of electrical outages. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball in view of Lubkeman in view of Caulfield in view of Storch, as applied in claims 6 and 16, and further in view of Tolnar.
Claim 7/17
While Ball teaches [0082] In an operation 800, variables are created and initialized for service outage planning application 220. A service outage coverage area for which the crew is assigned, the starting time for the outage metric, and the initial outage information. [0082] In an operation 800, variables are created and initialized for service outage planning application 220. A service outage coverage area for which the crew is assigned, the starting time for the outage metric, and the initial outage information. 0084] In an operation 804, a number of customers restored per a predefined time period for pairs of locations of the plurality of locations is calculated based on the number of customers restored by the repair, the estimated travel time, and the estimated repair time. [0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time, T.sub.R, is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. Ball does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference Tolnar teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the weight associated with each of the electrical outages is calculated based on a priority status of one or more customers affected by the electrical outage wherein the weight associated with each of the electrical outages is used to prioritize repairs of the electrical outages that are more critical ([0029]The priority levels that are assigned to the customers can be based upon a number of factors. One such factor may be the type of facility. For example, hospitals and first-responder facilities, such as police stations and fire stations, will typically have the highest priority level, relative to the businesses and residential housing. Priority might also be based upon the type of load at a customer's premises. For instance, a warehouse that stores perishable goods may be given higher priority than a residential unit. This requested information is provided by the CIS, at step 64.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball, Lubkeman, Caulfield, and Storch to incorporate the teachings of Tolnar to include the weight associated with each of the electrical outages is calculated based on a priority status of one or more customers affected by the electrical outage wherein the weight associated with each of the electrical outages is used to prioritize repairs of the electrical outages that are more critical. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule higher priority levels service requests associated with emergency situations and establish an efficient service orders schedule relating to business.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball in view of Lubkeman in view of Caulfield, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Garrett Russel Ming(US 2015/0286979 A1, hereinafter “Ming”).
Claim 9
While Ball teaches [0082] In an operation 800, variables are created and initialized for service outage planning application 220. A service outage coverage area for which the crew is assigned, the starting time for the outage metric, and the initial outage information. [0082] In an operation 800, variables are created and initialized for service outage planning application 220. A service outage coverage area for which the crew is assigned, the starting time for the outage metric, and the initial outage information. 0084] In an operation 804, a number of customers restored per a predefined time period for pairs of locations of the plurality of locations is calculated based on the number of customers restored by the repair, the estimated travel time, and the estimated repair time. [0074] and [0083] an estimated repair time, T.sub.R, is identified. For example, a numerical value is received that indicates a user selection of the value to be used for T.sub.R. T.sub.R may be defined as a function of a type of repair to be performed at each location, as a function of a crew experience level, as a function of a crew size, as a function of a crew equipment type, etc. Ball does not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, analogues reference
Ming teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising communicating the ERT associated with each of the electrical outages to each customer associated with the electrical outage ([0103] In various embodiments, the scheduling representative 202 may instruct (e.g., provide input) the job creation module 124 to assign the new job based on an agreement communicated from the customer 110 to have an item serviced. The agreement may be communicated after information regarding the timing of the scheduled appointment and/or the identification of the technician is/are communicated to the customer. For example, using the scheduling and shop loading techniques provided herein, the scheduling representative 202 can inform the customer that “we are estimating that your item will begin to be serviced today at 2:00 pm and will be finished by 3:00 pm” and the technician scheduled to service your item is Joe F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Ball, Lubkeman, and Caulfield to incorporate the teachings of Ming to include communicating the ERT associated with each of the electrical outages to each customer associated with the electrical outage. Doing so would allow the system to accurately schedule and communicate the time window allocated to the service request to the customer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230252375 A1
Digital Cloud-Based Platform and Method for Providing Shell Communication with Cognitive Cross-Collaboration Access Using Certified Attribute Parameters and Operant Conditioning Tags
KERNLAND; Martin E. et al.
US 20220198474 A1
Optimization Of Providing Technical Services
DeLuca; Lisa Seacat et al.
US 20190166251 A1
Preemptive Responses Based on Service Availability
DeLuca; Lisa Seacat et al.
US 20160307127 A1
Spatio-Temporal Crew Planning
Katz; Jeffrey S. et al.
US 20140257694 A1
Storm Response Optimization
Ball; Kathy et al.
US 20070038498 A1
Method and system for allocating specific appointment time windows in a service industry
Powell; G. Edward et al.
US 20140330605 A1
System And Method for Monitoring and Scheduling a Workforce
CONNOLLY; PAUL et al.
US 20230027594 A1
Machine Learning Powered Anomaly Detection for Maintenance Work Orders
Esmalifalak; Mohammad et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625