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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “storage apparatus” in claims 12 and 16-21. Corresponding structure disclosed at least on Page 17 of the instant Specification in the form of “a magnetic tape and a hard disk.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical and/or mental activity algorithm for determining whether to perform line protection and determining fault polarity in an HVDC line while line protection is being performed (see the equations recited through the instant claims). A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea [See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying HVDC line results through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited computer components amount to the recitation of a general-purpose computer for the performance of the algorithm and do not serve to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., A Novel Traveling Wave Protection Method for DC Transmission Lines Using Current Fitting, IEEE, 2020 [hereinafter “Zhang”] and Altuve et al., Advances in Series-Compensated Line Protection, IEEE, 2009 [hereinafter “Altuve”].
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 13, Zhang discloses a method (and corresponding processor, storage apparatus, storage medium, and computer program [One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the analysis is performed through use of a general-purpose computer.]) for protecting a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) line [Abstract – “Hybrid AC/DC transmission grids require high-speed operation and high reliability for relay protection. … In this paper, the fault traveling wave is analyzed considering the attenuation, distortion, and boundary effect of the DC transmission line as well as three converter types. The simulation results show that 1) the proposed protection method can complete fault identification within 1 ms, even with high fault impedance; 2) the proposed protection method has high robustness to the influence of the noise.”], the method comprising:
acquiring a DC line parameter and a DC system operation parameter [Page 2981-2982 – “In Fig. 3,Req = 2(Rarm + Ron)/3, Leq = 2Larm/3,Ceq = 6Csm/N, where Ron is the on-state resistance of all inserted sub-modules in each arm, Rarm is the arm resistance, Larm is the arm inductance, Csm is the capacitance of the sub-module; Lcl is the current limit inductor; N is the number of the inserted sub-modules in each phase unit.” Rarm and Larm being line parameters and Ron, Csm, Lcl, and N being operation parameters.], and sampling a DC line protection installation position operation parameter [Page 2981, second column – “In Fig. 1, M and N are DC buses; R1 and R2 are the measuring points at the end of the DC transmission lines”];
calculating, based on the DC line protection installation position operation parameter [Page 2981, first column – “When a fault occurs at the DC side of the hybrid AC/DC grid, the short-circuit current will rise rapidly in milliseconds (especially for VSC-HVDC system). The protection of the DC transmission line and the DC CB should quickly identify and isolate the faulty line to prevent the blocking of the converter station and guarantee the normal operation of the healthy line and other parts of the system. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the characteristics of the fault traveling wave in the fault initial stage and to provide a basis for the fast primary protection method in hybrid AC/DC grid. Therefore, the analysis of the fault traveling wave in DC transmission lines in hybrid AC/DC transmission grid can be simplified to the analysis in the structure of Fig. 1.”], a line-mode fault voltage of a sampling point, a zero-mode fault voltage of the sampling point, a line-mode fault current of the sampling point, and a continuous rate of change of the line-mode fault current [Page 2982, second column – “uf0 is the amplitude of the zero-mode voltage initial traveling wave at the fault point”Page 2984, first column – “the zero-mode and line-mode fault component currents i0 and Δi1 can be used to discriminate between the forward and reverse faults,” both line-mode and zero-mode faults are sampled for. Δi1 being a continuous rate of change of fault current.]; and
determining, according to the line-mode fault current and the continuous rate of change of the line-mode fault current, whether to start line protection [Page 2985, first column – “Based on the previous analysis, using the index b can effectively discriminate between the internal and forward external faults. The protection criterion can be expressed as follows,
b ≥ bthre = krelbse (23)
where bthre is the threshold value of the protection, which is set to the value that can discriminate between the internal and external faults; krel is the reliable coefficient of the protection; bse is themaximumvalue of the index coefficients for all possible external faults.”].
Zhang fails to disclose in response to starting the line protection, compensating the line-mode fault voltage based on the DC line parameter, the DC system operation parameter, and a first peak value of the line-mode fault voltage; and determining whether the HVDC line is faulty according to the compensated line-mode fault voltage, and in response to determining that the HVDC line is faulty.
However, Altuve discloses the determination and use of such a voltage compensation factor for evaluating transmission line faults [See Section III(C), particularly – “Fig. 16 shows a series-compensated line to illustrate the logic. The relay calculates a voltage VCALC, assuming that the fault is beyond the series capacitor. Then the relay determines the ratio of the measured voltage magnitude VMEAS to the calculated voltage magnitude VCALC and compares this ratio with a threshold value.”].
It would have been obvious to determine and use such a factor because doing so would have allowed for more effectively evaluating transmission line faults.
Zhang, as modified, would further disclose determining a line fault polarity based on the zero-mode fault voltage [See Table I of Zhang, per the use of the determined voltage ratio in identifying fault location of Altuve].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Song et al., Novel Distance Protection Based on Distributed Parameter Model for Long-Distance Transmission Lines, IEEE, 2013
Xiang et al., A Transient Voltage-Based DC Fault Line Protection Scheme for MMC-Based DC Grid Embedding DC Breakers, IEEE, 2019
Yu et al., A New PMU-Based Fault Location Algorithm for Series Compensated Lines, IEEE, 2002
US 20130317768 A1 – VOLTAGE BASED METHOD FOR FAULT IDENTIFICATION IN A TRANSMISSION LINE AND APPARATUS THEREOF
US 20170227595 A1 – Systems And Methods For Determining A Fault Location In A Three-Phase Series-Compensated Power Transmission Line
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857