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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 (312, 312, 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 the other of the connection bars (plurality of LOAD connected to 310 by connection bars, Figure 21, Paragraph 75),
protection devices being connected, on at least one electrical conductor, between the sources and the loads (protection devices/circuit breakers 306, 310 and associated Node 302 connected between 312 and LOAD, Figure 21, Paragraph 75), the 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, the flow of electrical current in said at least one conductor being interrupted when the protection device 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 signal of detection of a fault current indicating the presence or absence of a fault detected on an associated conductor depending on a current amplitude, and an indication of the direction of the fault current (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 within the distribution network, comprising at least one monitoring point directly connected to a plurality of protection devices, forming a vicinity of said monitoring point (monitoring points at connection bars in the vicinity, above/below of the protection devices 306, 308 with Node 302 locations, Figure 22-26),
for each monitoring point, determining a fault condition, said fault condition being defined by a plurality of rules relating to the signals indicating the presence or absence of a fault and the associated indication of direction of the current for each protection device in the vicinity of said monitoring point (Figures 18-19, 21-26, 30-32, Paragraphs 79, 108),
monitoring a confirmation of a fault condition, and when a 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 devices for monitoring the vicinity of said fault 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Premerlani discloses the method according to Claim 1, in which, when the fault condition associated with a monitoring point is confirmed, all the protection devices in the vicinity of said monitoring point which supply said monitoring point with current are tripped as a priority (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, in such a manner as to trip said 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 said 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, in which, for a monitoring point, at least one rule associated with a protection device in the 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, in which the absence of a detected fault is also representative of a state of opening of said protection device (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, in which, 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 (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 7, Premerlani discloses a system for protecting an electrical distribution network (Figures 1-34) comprising at least two sources of electrical energy (312, 312, 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 the other of the connection bars (plurality of LOAD connected to 310 by connection bars, Figure 21, Paragraph 75),
protection devices being connected, on at least one electrical conductor, between the sources and the loads (protection devices/circuit breakers 306, 310 and associated Node 302 connected between 312 and LOAD, Figure 21, Paragraph 75), the 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, the flow of electrical current in said at least one conductor being interrupted when the protection device 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 signal of detection of a fault current indicating the presence or absence of a fault detected on an associated conductor depending on a current amplitude, and an indication of the direction of the fault current (trip times shown in Figure 28, current sensors, Figure 14 and Node associated with protection devices in Figures 21-26, Paragraph 79), the system being configured to:
determine a plurality of monitoring points within the distribution network, comprising at least one monitoring point directly connected to a plurality of protection devices, forming a vicinity of said monitoring point (monitoring points at connection bars in the vicinity, above/below of the protection devices 306, 308 with Node 302 locations, Figure 22-26)
for each monitoring point, determine an associated fault condition, said fault condition being defined by a plurality of rules relating to the signals indicating the presence or absence of a fault and the associated indication of direction of the current of each protection device in the vicinity of said monitoring point (Figures 18-19, 21-26, 30-32, Paragraphs 79, 108),
monitor a confirmation of a fault condition, and when a fault condition associated with a monitoring point is confirmed, trip as a priority, with a trip timer less than the nominal trip timer, the opening of at least one of the devices for monitoring the vicinity of said fault 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).
Regarding Claim 8, Premerlani discloses the system according to Claim 7, in which the monitoring of confirmation of a fault condition is effected by a hard-wired logic, each protection device being configured to verify one or more fault conditions, each fault condition being associated with a monitoring point of the vicinity to which said 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, in which each given protection device, belonging to a vicinity of a monitoring point, receives at the input, via connection cables, the signals indicative of the presence of a fault current and indicative of the direction of the current of each other protection device belonging to said vicinity of said monitoring point, each of said 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, in which, within each protection device, the confirmation of the fault condition associated with said monitoring point is implemented, based on said binary signals received at the input, by means of 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, in which, 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).
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.
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, 1/08/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838