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 specification (including the abstract and claims), and any amendments for applications, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825, must have text written plainly and legibly either by a typewriter or machine printer in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font size of 6) in portrait orientation and presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition; and only a single column of text. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b).
The application papers are objected to because several equations contain subscripts which are illegible. For example equations 1 and 2 found on page 7 of the specification, equations 13, 14 and 15 found on pages 16 and 17 of the specification, and the equations in claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 14 and 15 contain illegible subscripts. Applicant may refer to the Pre-Grant Publication of the application (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0235184) to see references to each portion of the specification that are illegible.
A legible substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) and 1.125 is required.
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 1-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to a method which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites determining a voltage amplitude of a new energy terminal and a voltage amplitude of an alternating-current (AC) bus at any moment after faults of the new energy terminal and the AC bus are cleared respectively; determining an overvoltage limit ratio according to a ratio of the voltage amplitude of the new energy terminal to the voltage amplitude of the AC bus; determining a critical overvoltage limit ratio; determining a maximum new energy terminal voltage value and a maximum AC bus voltage value bearable for the new energy terminal and the AC bus respectively; and performing identification of a dominant voltage safety constraint according to the overvoltage limit ratio, the critical overvoltage limit ratio, the maximum new energy terminal voltage value and the maximum AC bus voltage value, and determining an identification result. Each of these claims steps is accomplished by performing equations (Specification, pars. 33-70). Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea that falls into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 2-5 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 6 is directed to an electronic device which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea similar to that recited in claim 1.
The additional elements in claim 8 are a processor and a memory. The recitation of a processor and memory amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7-10 depend from claim 6 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 7-10 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 7-10 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
The additional elements in claim 8 are a processor and the storage medium. The recitation of a processor and memory amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 14-17 depend from claim 11 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 14-17 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 14-17 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Prior Art
The closest prior art is CN 113783232 to Huadong et al. Huadong teaches determining a voltage of a machine end and an AC current bus and determining the overvoltage constraint of the new energy grid connected system. However, Huadong does not teach determining an overvoltage limit ratio according to a ratio of the voltage amplitude of the new energy terminal to the voltage amplitude of the AC bus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights