DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A monitoring arrangement for monitoring a parameter value associated with at least one of an AC supply and an AC component of a supply in a distribution network.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the network" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the distribution network mentioned in lines 2-3 or referring to another network. If it is referring to the distribution network, it is recommended to amend to recite “in use, the distribution network”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the output" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to amend to recite “[[the]] an output” at the first appearance of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the difference" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to amend to recite “[[the]] a difference” at the first appearance of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the phase offset values" in line 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The first appearance of the limitation is recited in singular form. It is recommended to amend to recite “the phase offset value” at the first appearance of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to amend to recite “[[the]] an operation” at the first appearance of the limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the network" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the distribution network mentioned in lines 2-3 or referring to another network. If it is referring to the distribution network, it is recommended to amend to recite “in use, the distribution network”.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 12.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites A monitoring arrangement for monitoring a parameter value associated with at least one of an AC supply and an AC component of a supply in a distribution network, the monitoring arrangement comprising: a sensor electrically connected, in use, to the network or otherwise monitoring the network, and a control unit operable to use the output of the sensor to determine, for a voltage, a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value, and to use the difference in the phase offset values in controlling the operation of one of a load and a device.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites an arrangement; therefore, it is a system
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determine, for a voltage, a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining, for a voltage, a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a sensor electrically connected, in use, to the network or otherwise monitoring the network, a control unit operable to use the output of the sensor,
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of monitoring a parameter of an AC electrical signal in an electrical distribution network are performed: an AC supply and an AC component of a supply in a distribution network,
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of monitoring a parameter value in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to monitor a parameter of an AC electrical signal in an electrical distribution network. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: use the difference in the phase offset values in controlling the operation of one of a load and a device.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of monitoring a parameter value of an AC supply in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the control unit uses the difference in the phase offset to control the operation of one of an electrical storage device, a smart electrical device, an electrical heating device, a storage heater, and a water heater.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the control unit is operable to model the AC signal in the network and to derive, therefrom, the phase offset value.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the control unit uses a recursive discrete Fourier transform (DFT) based technique in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the control unit uses a fast Fourier transform (FFT) based technique in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the control unit uses a fast sine transform (FST) based technique in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the control unit uses a fast cosine transform (FCT) based technique in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the predetermined phase offset value is determined by an in-line measurement of the AC signal.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the predetermined phase offset value is based on a look-up table stored in a memory of the monitoring arrangement.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the predetermined phase offset value is based on a model wave form representative of the signal of the AC supply.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein a positive difference in the phase offset, indicating that the phase offset is increasing, is used to provide an indication that the frequency of the AC supply is rising and that there is excess supply, and a negative difference in the phase offset, indicating that the phase offset is decreasing, is used to indicate that the frequency of the AC supply falling and that there is excess demand.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites a method of monitoring a parameter value associated with at least one of an AC supply or and an AC component of a supply in a distribution network, the method comprising; using a sensor electrically connected to the network or otherwise monitoring the network, determining, based on an output of the sensor for a voltage, a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value, and controlling an operation of one of a load and a device based on a difference between the predetermined phase offset value and the phase offset value.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining, based on an output of the sensor for a voltage, a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining, for a voltage, a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: controlling an operation of one of a load and a device based on a difference between the predetermined phase offset value and the phase offset value.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of monitoring a parameter of an AC electrical signal in an electrical distribution network are performed: an AC supply and an AC component of a supply in a distribution network,
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of monitoring a parameter value in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to monitor a parameter of an AC electrical signal in an electrical distribution network. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: using a sensor electrically connected to the network or otherwise monitoring the network; use the difference in the phase offset values in controlling the operation of one of a load and a device.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of monitoring a parameter value of an AC supply in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising controlling, based on the difference between the predetermined phase offset value and the phase offset value, an operation of one of an electrical storage device, a smart electrical device, or of an electrical heating device, a storage heater and a water heater.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising modelling the AC signal in the network and to derive, therefrom, the phase offset value.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, which depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising using at least one of a recursive discrete Fourier transform (DFT) based technique, a fast Fourier transform (FFT) based technique, a fast sine transform (FST) based technique, and a fast cosine transform (FCT) based technique, in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising determining the predetermined phase offset value via an in-line measurement of the AC signal.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising using a look-up table stored in a memory of the monitoring arrangement for the selection of the predetermined phase offset value.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising using model wave form representative of the signal of the AC supply in the determination of the predetermined phase offset value.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 19 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… comprising determining, based on a positive difference in the phase offset, that the frequency of the AC supply is rising and that there is excess supply, and determining, based on a negative difference in the phase offset, that the frequency of the AC supply falling and that there is excess demand.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frampton; Isaac S. et al. (US Publication #US 10338119 B2; provided by the applicant; hereinafter Frampton).
Regarding claim 1, Frampton teaches,
A monitoring arrangement (col.13 ln 50-52 “The generator waveform may be monitored using a sensor such as a voltage sensing circuit or a current sensing circuit.”) for monitoring a parameter value (col.13 ln 20-22 “The waveform calculator 113 may for measuring electrical parameters of waveforms such as amplitudes, frequencies, and/or phase offsets.”) associated with at least one of an AC supply (most standard generators and all-purpose portable generators produce alternating current (AC).) and an AC component of a supply (col.3 ln 9-11 “Troubleshooting of the generator system may be performed based on the detection of these abnormalities in order to identify a malfunction component of the generator system.”) in a distribution network (col. 10 ln 61 “to produce AC for distribution”), the monitoring arrangement comprising:
a sensor electrically connected (Col.4 ln 11-13 “a sensor that determines sample values of the generator waveform at a predetermined time interval.”), in use, to the network or otherwise monitoring the network (col.20 ln 36-45 “The communication interface 203 may be connected to a network. The network may include wired networks (e.g., Ethernet), wireless networks, or combinations thereof. The wireless network may be a cellular telephone network, an 802.11, 802.16, 802.20, or WiMax network. Further, the network may be a public network, such as the Internet, a private network, such as an intranet, or combinations thereof, and may utilize a variety of networking protocols now available or later developed including, but not limited to TCP/IP based networking protocols.), and
a control unit operable to use the output of the sensor (col.13 ln 47-57 “The controller 100 identifies at least one generator waveform. The generator waveform may include an array of numbers that describe an electrical value of an output of the generator. The generator waveform may be monitored using a sensor such as a voltage sensing circuit or a current sensing circuit. The array of numbers may be samples that are collected by a sampling circuit. The at least one generator waveform may include a single phase or multiple phases. The at least one generator waveform may be measured from line level outputs to neutral or from line to line (e.g., from one phase to another phase).”) to determine, for a voltage (col.4 ln 1-7 “The template comparator 13 of the controller 100 compares a measured generator waveform to one or more templates of a generator waveform generated by or stored by the template module 11. The measured generator waveform may correspond to the output of the alternator 15. The output may include one or more voltage waveforms, one or more current waveforms, or one or more power waveforms.”), a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value (Col.3 ln 64-67 “The phases of the poly-phase signal may be offset from one another by a predetermined angle (e.g., 120 degrees or 2*Pi/3 radians). The poly-phase signal may vary with respect to amplitude and frequency.”), and to use the difference in the phase offset values (col.3 ln 56- ln 67 “Col.3 ln 64-67 “The phases of the poly-phase signal may be offset from one another by a predetermined angle (e.g., 120 degrees or 2*Pi/3 radians). The poly-phase signal may vary with respect to amplitude and frequency.”) in controlling the operation (col.4 ln 27-37) of one of a load or and a device (generator 110; col.13 ln 13-33).
Regarding claim 2, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1, wherein the control unit uses the difference in the phase offset to control the operation of one of an electrical storage device, a smart electrical device (the reference is about generator waveform measurement; modern generators—particularly standby units—are considered smart electrical devices because they integrate with home automation networks to provide automated, remote monitoring, and control via smartphone apps.), an electrical heating device, a storage heater, and a water heater.
Regarding claim 3, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1, wherein the control unit is operable to model the AC signal (Col.8 ln 26-41 “The output of a generator, while modeled by a sine wave, is different than a mathematically ideal sine waveform.”) in the network and to derive, therefrom, the phase offset value (col.8 ln 64-67 “The FFT of the data includes frequency components Derived from the magnitude of the complex components in a resultant matrix after the conversion to the frequency domain.”).
Regarding claim 4, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 3, wherein the control unit uses a recursive discrete Fourier transform (DFT) (Col.8 ln 58-60
“the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.” A recursive Fourier transform is an algorithmic approach used in the efficient computation of the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), commonly known as the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).) based technique in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.
Regarding claim 5, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 3, wherein the control unit uses a fast Fourier transform (FFT) ((Col.8 ln 58-60 “the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.”) based technique in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.
Regarding claim 6, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 3, wherein the control unit uses a fast sine transform (FST) based technique (Col.8 ln 58-60 “the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.”. Fourier transforms are directly related to Fourier sine and cosine transforms) in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.
Regarding claim 7, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 3, wherein the control unit uses a fast cosine transform (FCT) based technique (Col.8 ln 58-60 “the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.”. Fourier transforms are directly related to Fourier sine and cosine transforms) in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value.
Regarding claim 8, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1, wherein the predetermined phase offset value is determined by an in-line measurement of the AC signal (Col. 13 ln 55-57 “The at least one generator waveform may be measured from line level outputs to neutral or from line to line (e.g., from one phase to another phase).”).
Regarding claim 9, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1, wherein the predetermined phase offset value is based on a look-up table (Col.17 ln 41-55 teaches templates containing arrays; A table is effectively a 2D array where each column is an array of a specific data type.) stored in a memory (fig.17 memory #201) of the monitoring arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1, wherein the predetermined phase offset value is based on a model wave form (col.15 ln 1-22) representative of the signal of the AC supply (Col.8 ln 24-30).
Regarding claim 11, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1, wherein a positive difference in the phase offset, indicating that the phase offset is increasing, is used to provide an indication that the frequency of the AC supply is rising and that there is excess supply, and a negative difference in the phase offset, indicating that the phase offset is decreasing, is used to indicate that the frequency of the AC supply falling and that there is excess demand (Col.2 ln 36-45 “The sign of the reactive power, to determine whether the generator voltage leads or lags the generator current, may be calculated from the generator waveform measurements including offset angle described herein. A positive offset angle corresponds to current that lags the voltage, and a negative offset angle to current that leads the voltage.” a positive difference in the phase offset (where the phase offset is defined as voltage leading current) is equivalent to a positive offset angle that corresponds to a current that lags the voltage; Col.2-col.3 ln 66-ln “The phasor diagram indicates whether the current leads or lags the voltage, and vice versa, and a magnitude by which the current leads or lags the voltage.”).
Regarding claim 12, Frampton teaches
A method of monitoring a parameter value (col.13 ln 20-22 “The waveform calculator 113 may for measuring electrical parameters of waveforms such as amplitudes, frequencies, and/or phase offsets.”) associated with at least one of an AC supply (most standard generators and all-purpose portable generators produce alternating current (AC).) and an AC component of a supply (col.3 ln 9-11 “Troubleshooting of the generator system may be performed based on the detection of these abnormalities in order to identify a malfunction component of the generator system.”) in a distribution network (col. 10 ln 61 “to produce AC for distribution”), the method comprising:
using a sensor electrically connected (Col.4 ln 11-13 “a sensor that determines sample values of the generator waveform at a predetermined time interval.”) to the network or otherwise monitoring the network (col.20 ln 36-45 “The communication interface 203 may be connected to a network. The network may include wired networks (e.g., Ethernet), wireless networks, or combinations thereof. The wireless network may be a cellular telephone network, an 802.11, 802.16, 802.20, or WiMax network. Further, the network may be a public network, such as the Internet, a private network, such as an intranet, or combinations thereof, and may utilize a variety of networking protocols now available or later developed including, but not limited to TCP/IP based networking protocols.),
determining, based on an output of the sensor for a voltage (col.4 ln 1-7 “The template comparator 13 of the controller 100 compares a measured generator waveform to one or more templates of a generator waveform generated by or stored by the template module 11. The measured generator waveform may correspond to the output of the alternator 15. The output may include one or more voltage waveforms, one or more current waveforms, or one or more power waveforms.”), a phase offset value relative to a predetermined phase offset value (Col.3 ln 64-67 “The phases of the poly-phase signal may be offset from one another by a predetermined angle (e.g., 120 degrees or 2*Pi/3 radians). The poly-phase signal may vary with respect to amplitude and frequency.”), and
controlling an operation (col.4 ln 27-37) of one of a load and a device (generator 110; col.13 ln 13-33) based on a difference between the predetermined phase offset value and the phase offset value (col.3 ln 56- ln 67; Col.3 ln 64-67 “The phases of the poly-phase signal may be offset from one another by a predetermined angle (e.g., 120 degrees or 2*Pi/3 radians). The poly-phase signal may vary with respect to amplitude and frequency.”).
Regarding claim 13, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, comprising controlling, based on the difference between the predetermined phase offset value and the phase offset value, an operation of one of an electrical storage device, a smart electrical device (the reference is about generator waveform measurement; modern generators—particularly standby units—are considered smart electrical devices because they integrate with home automation networks to provide automated, remote monitoring, and control via smartphone apps.), an electrical heating device, a storage heater and a water heater.
Regarding claim 14, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, comprising modelling the AC signal in the network (Col.8 ln 26-41 “The output of a generator, while modeled by a sine wave, is different than a mathematically ideal sine waveform.”) and to derive, therefrom, the phase offset value (col.8 ln 64-67 “The FFT of the data includes frequency components Derived from the magnitude of the complex components in a resultant matrix after the conversion to the frequency domain.”).
Regarding claim 15, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 14, comprising using at least one of a recursive discrete Fourier transform (DFT) based technique (Col.8 ln 58-60 “the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.” A recursive Fourier transform is an algorithmic approach used in the efficient computation of the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), commonly known as the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).), a fast Fourier transform (FFT) based technique ((Col.8 ln 58-60 “the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.”), a fast sine transform (FST) based technique (Col.8 ln 58-60 “the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.”. Fourier transforms are directly related to Fourier sine and cosine transforms), and a fast cosine transform (FCT) based technique (Col.8 ln 58-60 “the miscalculation of the phase angle involves a Fourier transform or fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the two signals.”. Fourier transforms are directly related to Fourier sine and cosine transforms), in analyzing the AC signal, to thereby derive the phase offset value (col.8 ln 64-67 “The FFT of the data includes frequency components Derived from the magnitude of the complex components in a resultant matrix after the conversion to the frequency domain.”).
Regarding claim 16, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, comprising determining the predetermined phase offset value via an in-line measurement of the AC signal (Col. 13 ln 55-57 “The at least one generator waveform may be measured from line level outputs to neutral or from line to line (e.g., from one phase to another phase).”).
Regarding claim 17, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, comprising using a look-up table stored in a memory (fig.17 memory #201) of the monitoring arrangement for the selection of the predetermined phase offset value (Col.17 ln 41-55 teaches templates containing arrays; A table is effectively a 2D array where each column is an array of a specific data type.).
Regarding claim 18, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, comprising using model wave form (col.15 ln 1-22) representative of the signal of the AC supply in the determination of the predetermined phase offset value (Col.8 ln 24-30).
Regarding claim 19, Frampton teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, comprising determining, based on a positive difference in the phase offset, that the frequency of the AC supply is rising and that there is excess supply, and determining, based on a negative difference in the phase offset, that the frequency of the AC supply falling and that there is excess demand (Col.2 ln 36-45 “The sign of the reactive power, to determine whether the generator voltage leads or lags the generator current, may be calculated from the generator waveform measurements including offset angle described herein. A positive offset angle corresponds to current that lags the voltage, and a negative offset angle to current that leads the voltage.” a positive difference in the phase offset (where the phase offset is defined as voltage leading current) is equivalent to a positive offset angle that corresponds to a current that lags the voltage; Col.2-col.3 ln 66-ln “The phasor diagram indicates whether the current leads or lags the voltage, and vice versa, and a magnitude by which the current leads or lags the voltage.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 7233129 B2; Erdman; William et al. is a Generator with utility fault ride-through capability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858