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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 3/6/2026 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
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 “sampler configured to periodically sample,” “first determiner configured to determine,” “second determiner configured to determine,” and “third determiner configured to determine” in claims 18 and 20-22.
Corresponding structure is disclosed in the instant Specification at least in the form of:
sampler – Page 9, voltage sensor
determiners– Pages 21-22, computer hardware and/or software
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 13, 15-18, and 20-24 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 algorithm (for example, see Claims 14 and 15) for determining a working voltage and/or the existence of faults within a three-phase electrical distribution capacitor bank.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying capacitor bank is realized through use of the algorithm. The recited power system limitations amounting to mere field-of-use limitations.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited sensing and sensing components are necessary data gathering limitations in performing the algorithm. The recited apparatus, units, processor, memory, CRM, and instructions amount to the recitation of general-purpose computer components for implementing the algorithm using a general-purpose computer and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasztenny et al., Fundamentals of Adaptive Protection of Large Capacitor Banks – Accurate Methods for Canceling Inherent Bank Unbalances, IEEE, 2007 [hereinafter “Kasztenny”] and Hsieh, Lecture notes (linear regression), UCLA, 11.24.2019 (available at https://web.cs.ucla.edu/~chohsieh/teaching/CS260_Winter2019/notes_linearregression.pdf, archived version accessed through use of the Wayback Machine internet archive:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claims 13, 18, 23, and 24, Kasztenny discloses a determining method for a working voltage of an isolated neutral system [Section 4.2. Compensated bank neutral voltage unbalance – “With reference to Figure 6 this function is applicable to ungrounded banks”See Fig. 6 and Equation 5.](One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the methods are implemented using a general-purpose computer and corresponding programming with regards to the recited apparatus, units, processor, memory, CRM, and instructions [See Page 126 – “The utility relay engineer has generally needed to combine the functionality of multiple relays and customize their programming to provide the necessary protective system that will avoid false tripping for system disturbances and obtain the sensitivity for detecting capacitor can faults and minimizing damage.”]), the determining method comprising:
providing a power system including three phase wires and three capacitor banks, one terminal of each capacitor bank being connected to one phase wire, respective other terminals of the capacitor banks being connected to one another to form a neutral point, and each capacitor bank including a plurality of capacitors [Fig. 6];
periodically sampling a phase voltage of each phase wire, to obtain a plurality of groups of sampling values of real-time phase voltages, each group of sampling values of real-time phase voltages including sampling value of a phase voltage of each phase wire obtained by simultaneously measuring each phase wire [Page 156 – “The voltage differential, phase and current balance methods are subject to self-tuning under any conditions; the neutral voltage unbalance is subject to self-tuning as long as the neutral point voltage is above the measuring error level. When applied in the self-tuning mode the methods continuously compensate for temperature and seasonal changes, in a slow loop of modifying their balancing coefficients based on actual values. Note that the majority of the balancing coefficients developed in this paper are ratios of impedances. As such they are already greatly insensitive to temperature and seasonal changes. If implemented in the self-tuning mode a given method shall still monitor the total drift in the operating signal even if very slow, and alarm if the amount of the drift signifies a danger of possible future failure, or a series of minor failures that went undetected or unattended to.”As applied to Equations 4 and 5.];
determining unbalance rates between the capacitor banks based on the plurality of groups of sampling values of real-time phase voltages, the unbalance rates being a ratio between capacitance values of every two phase wires [Equation 4 – kAB and kAC]; and
determining the working voltage of the isolated neutral system based on the unbalance rates [Equation 5 – VOP].
Kasztenny fails to disclose carrying out the step of determining the unbalance rates between the capacitor banks based on the plurality of groups of sampling values of real-time phase voltages in the manner recited.
However, Hsieh discloses performing parameter regression in such a manner [Entire document, particularly Page 2 – “When XTX is invertible, eq (3) directly implies w∗ = (XTX)−1XTy is the unique solution of linear regression. This often happens when we face an over-determined system—number of samples is much larger than number of variables (N >> D).”]. It would have been obvious to use such a method to solve for kAB and kAC using the sampled voltage data [See Equations 4 and 5 of Kasztenny] because this would have presented an effective manner for doing so.
Regarding Claims 15 and 20, Kasztenny discloses providing the working voltage as:
PNG
media_image2.png
49
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Equation 5], and
V0 = (Va+Va+Vc)/3 [Equation 36d].
Regarding Claims 16 and 21, Kasztenny fails to disclose providing a number of the groups of sampling values of real-time phase voltages ranging from 2 to 10.
However, Hsieh discloses performing parameter regression that would require at least two groups of sampled values [Entire document, particularly Page 2 – “When XTX is invertible, eq (3) directly implies w∗ = (XTX)−1XTy is the unique solution of linear regression. This often happens when we face an over-determined system—number of samples is much larger than number of variables (N >> D).”]. It would have been obvious to use such a method to solve for kAB and kAC using the sampled voltage data [See Equations 4 and 5 of Kasztenny] because this would have presented an effective manner for doing so.
Claim(s) 17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasztenny et al., Fundamentals of Adaptive Protection of Large Capacitor Banks – Accurate Methods for Canceling Inherent Bank Unbalances, IEEE, 2007 [hereinafter “Kasztenny”]; Hsieh, Lecture notes (linear regression), UCLA, 11.24.2019 (available at https://web.cs.ucla.edu/~chohsieh/teaching/CS260_Winter2019/notes_linearregression.pdf, archived version accessed through use of the Wayback Machine internet archive:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and Xiao et al. (US 20120271572 A1)[hereinafter “Xiao”].
Regarding Claims 17 and 22, Kasztenny discloses the step of determining the working voltage of the isolated neutral system based on the unbalance rates [Equation 5 – VOP], but fails to disclose, upon identifying that a fault occurs in the isolated neutral system, determining, based on the working voltage, whether the fault is an internal fault, an internal fault indicating that a fault occurs in a capacitor in the capacitor bank; and carrying out the step of determining, based on the working voltage, whether the fault is an internal fault by including a determination that the fault is an internal fault if a value of the working voltage is greater than or equal to a preset threshold.
However, Xiao discloses the determination of a fault in a capacitor through the use of a neutral voltage threshold [Paragraph [0036] – “In other embodiments, either of these considerations can be used by the fault detection circuit 144c to determine whether a fault condition is suspected in at least one of the input filter capacitors Ci, for example by any suitable technique. In other embodiments, any or all of the measured neutral voltage(s) and/or current(s), the measured fundamental frequency component FC.sub.MEASURED, and/or the input current unbalance value(s) can be used to determine whether a capacitor fault condition is suspected. As shown in the right-most column of Table 1 above, for instance, the fault detection circuit 144c compares the sensed unbalance (e.g., percentage in one example) to the fault unbalance threshold value (e.g., corresponding value of curve 182 in FIG. 12 or the value from Table 1, using interpolation as needed). In such embodiments, if the sensed current unbalance value exceeds the threshold, the fault detection circuit 144c determines that a fault condition is suspected in at least one of the input filter capacitors Ci.”].
It would have been obvious to take such an approach in order to determine faults in the capacitor bank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
243
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terms “sampler configured to periodically sample” and “determiner configured to determine” amount to the recitation of generic placeholders that would include any corresponding structure configured to perform the recited function and are seen to invoke 35 USC 112(f). MPEP 2181 provides a list of terms that are seen to not invoke 35 USC 112(f)[for example “circuit”].
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
294
829
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
558
828
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Equation 4 of Kasztenny discloses an identical determination of the recited ratio of impedances (ZA/ZB) as seen at Page 3 of the instant Specification.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
82
807
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
344
802
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hsieh discloses performing parameter regression in such a manner [Entire document, particularly Page 2 – “When XTX is invertible, eq (3) directly implies w∗ = (XTX)−1XTy is the unique solution of linear regression. This often happens when we face an over-determined system—number of samples is much larger than number of variables (N >> D).”]. This is the same regression disclosed at Page 5 of the instant Specification. It would have been obvious to use such a method to solve for kAB and kAC using the sampled voltage data [See Equations 4 and 5 of Kasztenny] because this would have presented an effective manner for doing so. Doing so would have been within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the art (i.e., a background in electrical engineering with a focus on power distribution).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
145
842
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kasztenny inherently discloses the recited sampling [Page 156 – “The voltage differential, phase and current balance methods are subject to self-tuning under any conditions; the neutral voltage unbalance is subject to self-tuning as long as the neutral point voltage is above the measuring error level. When applied in the self-tuning mode the methods continuously compensate for temperature and seasonal changes, in a slow loop of modifying their balancing coefficients based on actual values. Note that the majority of the balancing coefficients developed in this paper are ratios of impedances. As such they are already greatly insensitive to temperature and seasonal changes. If implemented in the self-tuning mode a given method shall still monitor the total drift in the operating signal even if very slow, and alarm if the amount of the drift signifies a danger of possible future failure, or a series of minor failures that went undetected or unattended to.”As applied to Equations 4 and 5.].
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image9.png
305
838
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20130204554 A1 – SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR MONITORING A CAPACITOR BANK
US 20150092460 A1 – METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING AFE FILTER CAPACITOR DEGRADATION
US 20220107368 A1 – MULTI-PHASE FAULT IDENTIFICATION IN CAPACITOR BANKS
US 20220173587 A1 – SENSITIVE IMPEDANCE-BASED STRING PROTECTION OF MULTI-STRING AND MULTI-STAGE CAPACITOR
US 20130128393 A1 – Method And Arrangement For Capacitor Bank Protection
US 20110057661 A1 – APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING A FAULTED PHASE IN A SHUNT CAPACITOR BANK
US 20170059639 A1 – MONITORING SYSTEM FOR A CAPACITOR BANK
US 20200241060 A1 – METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MONITORING CAPACITOR FAULTS IN A CAPACITOR BANK
US 20110241695 A1 – METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MONITORING CAPACITOR BANKS
US 20120194202 A1 – DRIVE FAILURE PROTECTION
US 20150263600 A1 – FILTER CAPACITOR DEGRADATION IDENTIFICATION USING COMPUTED POWER
US 20080007230 A1 – Corrective Device Protection
US 6297940 B1 – Protection System For Devices In An Electrical Distribution Network
US 4104687 A – Device For Detecting Unbalanced Conditions In A Polyphase Equipment Bank
US 3909672 A – Capacitor Bank Protection Relay
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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