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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 21 recites, “between a source a load”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-6, 20 depend from objected Claim 1.
Claim 7, line 23 recites, “between a source a load”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 8-19 depend from objected Claim 7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premerlani et al. (US 2008/0158753, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 1, Premerlani discloses a method for protecting an electrical distribution network (Figures 1-34) comprising
at least two sources of electrical energy (at least two 312shown in Figures 21-25, also see other Figures with corresponding elements, Paragraph 75), at least two connection bars (connections between 312 and 306, 306 and 310, 306 and 308, 310 and LOAD, Figure 21, Paragraph 75), a plurality of loads to be supplied being respectively connected to one or another of the connection bars (plurality of LOAD connected to 310 by connection bars, Figure 21, Paragraph 75),
a plurality of protection devices being connected to one another via wiring therebetween, the plurality of protection devices disposed, on at least one electrical conductor between the at least two sources and the plurality of loads (protection devices/circuit breakers 306, 310 and associated Node 302 connected between 312 and LOAD, Figure 21, Paragraph 75),
the at least two sources of electrical energy including electrical current flowing either in a first direction of current flow from the sources towards the loads, or in a second direction of current flow from the loads towards the sources (current directions shown in Figures 21-26, Paragraphs 75, 79),
each protection device being configured to go from a closed state to an open state, wherein a the flow of electrical current in the at least one electrical conductor is interrupted when at least one of the protection devices is in the open state (switching states of a circuit breaker 306, 310, Figures 21-26, open state current flow interrupted, closed state, current conducting),
each protection device having a nominal trip timer and being further configured to supply a fault detection signal indicating (1) the presence or absence of a fault current detected on an associated conductor depending on a current amplitude, and (2) an indication of the direction of the fault current when its presence is detected (trip times shown in Figure 28, current sensors, Figure 14 and Node associated with protection devices in Figures 21-26, Paragraph 79), the method comprising:
determining a plurality of monitoring points on the at least one electrical conductor within the electrical distribution network, the plurality of monitoring points comprising three groups, each group including at least one monitoring point directly connected to at least one of the plurality of protection devices (Node/302 located near monitoring points directly connected to 306, Figure 21),
wherein the three groups include a first group of interconnection points situated between multiple protection devices among the plurality of protection devices, wherein each interconnection point directly connects to two or more protection devices between a source a load to form a respective vicinity within the first group, with a first interconnection point in the first group forming a first vicinity by directly connecting to at least three of multiple protection devices (monitoring points at connection bars in the vicinity, bode/302 vicinity connecting the protection devices 306, 308 310, Figure 21, Figures 22-26),
wherein the first vicinity includes a first protection device connected to a second protection device and a third protection device via the first interconnection point, wherein the first protection device is directly connected to a first load among the plurality of loads ((Node/302 and 310 connected to LOAD, Figure 21), and
wherein the second and third protection devices are disposed between the first interconnection point and a first source among the at least two sources of electrical energy, with the second protection device being directly connected to the first source of electrical energy and the third protection device being disposed between the first and second protection devices (306 connected to 312 and 308 between 306, 310, Figure 21),
for each monitoring point among the interconnection points in the first group, determining a fault condition, the fault condition being defined by a plurality of rules relating to the fault detection signals indicating the presence or absence of a fault and the associated indication of direction of the fault current for each protection device in the respective vicinity of each monitoring point in the first group (Figures 18-19, 21-26, 30-32, Paragraphs 79, 108),
monitoring a confirmation of the fault condition,
when the fault condition associated with a monitoring point is confirmed, tripping as a priority, with a trip timer less than the nominal trip timer, the opening of at least one of the protection devices for monitoring the respective vicinity of that monitoring point (feeder with 0.1 sec timer, Tie with 0.2 sec. timer and main with 0.3 sec. timer, Figure 28, Paragraphs 41, 89, 157). Premerlani also discloses various fault detection and confirmation schemes as described in the specification.
Premerlani does not specifically disclose confirming a first fault condition associated with the first interconnection point upon receiving at least three signals including (1) a first signal from the first protection device in the first vicinity, (2) a second signal from the second protection device in the first vicinity, and (3) a third signal from the third protection device in the first vicinity, the first signal indicating the absence of a fault, and the second and third signals both indicating the presence of a fault in the direction of the first interconnection point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the confirmation of the fault condition in the method of Premerlani limitations, to meet the desired protection level, response time and operational efficiency.
Regarding Claim 2, Premerlani discloses the method according to Claim 1, further comprising, when the fault condition associated with the first interconnection point is confirmed, tripping as priority all closed protection devices in the first vicinity which supply the first interconnection point with current such that at least the second and third protection devices are immediately opened upon being tripped as a priority, wherein the third protection device is connected to a fourth protection device via a second interconnection point in a second vicinity to which the third and fourth protection devices both belong, and wherein the third protection device is tripped without tripping the fourth protection device in the second vicinity when the first fault condition is confirmed in the first vicinity (Figure 28, Paragraph 140, “For a fault at location 1, trip main M1 only. For a fault at location 2, trip the tie and main M1. For a fault at location 3, trip main 2 only. For a fault at location 4, trip the TIE and main M2”).
Regarding Claim 3, Premerlani discloses the method according to Claim 1, in which said rules are implemented in the form of hard-wired logic and wired relays within each of the protective devices, in such a manner as to trip the at least one protection device forming part of the vicinity of a monitoring point when all of the rules forming the fault condition associated with that monitoring point are confirmed (Figure 29, Paragraph 79, Paragraph 140, “…For a fault at location 1, trip main M1 only. For a fault at location 2, trip the tie and main M1. For a fault at location 3, trip main 2 only. For a fault at location 4, trip the TIE and main M2”).
Regarding Claim 4, Premerlani discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein for each monitoring point, among the interconnection point in the group, at least one rule associated with a protection device in the respective vicinity combines the presence of a detected fault with an associated fault direction or the absence of a detected fault (Paragraphs 75, 79).
Regarding Claim 5, Premerlani discloses the method according to Claim 4, wherein the absence of a detected fault is also representative of a state of opening of the protection device in the respective vicinity (protection device opened to isolate the faulted zone interrupt current flow and zones/monitoring points does not measure current to indicate presence of a fault).
Regarding Claim 6, Premerlani discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein for each monitoring point, the associated fault condition is defined by the following cumulative rules: for each of the protection devices in the vicinity of said monitoring point, there is either: the detection of the presence of a fault, the direction of the fault current being in the direction of said monitoring point, or the absence of fault detection, and wherein the cumulative rules are implemented via wired internal relays within each protection devices (Paragraph 110, “…FIG. 22 illustrates the out of zone fault located at position F4, where the fault is illustrated with an X adjacent to F4. In the out of zone fault situation of the present example, current IA flowing through the main A circuit breaker 306 (from source 312 and into the Partial Differential Zone 320) is assigned a 1 to indicate its INWARD, or into the zone, direction. …. current IB flowing through the bus tie B circuit breaker 308 (i.e. through bus tie breaker 308 and out of the Partial Differential Zone 320) is assigned a 0 to indicate its OUTWARD, or out of the zone, direction…”).
Claim 7 recites a system for protecting an electrical distribution network corresponding to the method of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected similarly to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Premerlani discloses the system according to Claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of protection devices is hard-wired with logic to implement the rules for confirmation of fault condition, each protection device being configured to verify one or more fault conditions, each fault condition being associated with a monitoring point of the respective vicinity to which that protection device belongs (each Node 302 associated with 306/310 coupled to/two-way communication with central processor 304, Figure 21, Paragraph 79, Paragraph 140, “…For a fault at location 1, trip main M1 only. For a fault at location 2, trip the tie and main M1. For a fault at location 3, trip main 2 only. For a fault at location 4, trip the TIE and main M2”).
Regarding Claim 9, Premerlani discloses the system according to Claim 8, wherein each given protection device, belonging to a vicinity of an interconnection point in the first group, receives at the input, via connection cables, the fault detection signals indicative of the presence of a fault current and indicative of the direction of the current of each other protection device belonging to the vicinity of the interconnection point, each of fault detection signals being a binary signal (Paragraph 110, “…FIG. 22 illustrates the out of zone fault located at position F4, where the fault is illustrated with an X adjacent to F4. In the out of zone fault situation of the present example, current IA flowing through the main A circuit breaker 306 (from source 312 and into the Partial Differential Zone 320) is assigned a 1 to indicate its INWARD, or into the zone, direction. …. current IB flowing through the bus tie B circuit breaker 308 (i.e. through bus tie breaker 308 and out of the Partial Differential Zone 320) is assigned a 0 to indicate its OUTWARD, or out of the zone, direction…”).
Regarding Claim 10, Premerlani discloses the system according to Claim 9, further comprising internal relays within each protection device, wherein the confirmation of the fault condition associated with each monitoring point is implemented, based on said binary signals received at the input, by means of the internal relays of the protection device (internal relays part of IED/Node 302, Figure 21, Paragraph 75, Paragraph 110, “…FIG. 22 illustrates the out of zone fault located at position F4, where the fault is illustrated with an X adjacent to F4. In the out of zone fault situation of the present example, current IA flowing through the main A circuit breaker 306 (from source 312 and into the Partial Differential Zone 320) is assigned a 1 to indicate its INWARD, or into the zone, direction. … current IB flowing through the bus tie B circuit breaker 308 (i.e. through bus tie breaker 308 and out of the Partial Differential Zone 320) is assigned a 0 to indicate its OUTWARD, or out of the zone, direction. In summary, IA is assigned a 1 and IB is assigned a 0; since IA and IB are flowing in different directions, the fault at F4 is an out of zone fault (i.e. outside of the Partial Differential Zone)”).
Regarding Claim 11, Premerlani discloses the system according to Claim 8, wherein within each protection device, the confirmation of the fault condition associated with said monitoring point is implemented by logic gates (part of Node 302, Paragraph 75, “…The use of nodes 302 and a central processor 304 is an example of real-time processing where the node 302 and processor 304 system process signals substantially simultaneously. The signals are, for example, serialized and packetized and hence the analog signal obtained via a CT (not shown) is converted to a digital signal”, Paragraph 108, 110).
Claims 12-20, newly introduced, recite fault condition and/or fault confirmation, and tripping priority for the protection devices in the recited vicinities and/or include all vicinities, not limited by any specific values, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set in the method and system of Premerlani having intelligent node electronics, interface modules and central processor in communication with all node electronics, protection scheme parameters including fault monitoring devices, determination, confirmation and trip priorities and programming schemes based on the design requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or rendered moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments (102 rejection is changed to 103 rejection).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments toward Premerlani and the new claims, examiner respectfully notes that instant application having block representation of the claimed elements (note that prior art Figures show the devices and the terminal connections), having a mark up copy to reference numbers of the claimed elements would help both the examiner with search and determination of support in the specification as well as the Applicant, to claim only fully supported in the original disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Premerlani et al. (US 2003/0216876) discloses a method and system for protecting an electrical distribution system in Figures 1-2 comprising plurality of sources 12, protection devices 20, 16, and loads 18 connected via connection bars and the plurality of protection devices 20, 16 connected to central CPU 24 via digital network 22 and discloses in Figures 3-5, the details of 24, 20, 16.
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 LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 6/27/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights