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 . 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 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.
This office action is in response to the application filed on 04/23/2024.
Drawing
The drawings filed on 04/23/2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 04/23/2024 and 05/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-29 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re to claims 1, 15 and 29, claims 1, 15 and 29 recite “power flow” and “in concert” it is not clear whether the power flow is refering to active or reactive power flow. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as a reactive power flow.
In re to claims 1, 15 and 29, claims 1, 12, 15 and 29 recite "work in concert" without specifying the actual implementation of the two processes, the interdependence of the two processes is not clear. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as two independent processes yielding a combined output.
In re to claims 7 and 21, claims 7 and 21 recite "engineering process", this term is very vague and completely unclear. The specification and drawings do not provide any tangible description
about the engineering process.
In re to claims 2-14 and 16-28, claims 2-14 and 16-28 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as independent processes yielding a combined output.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 11-19 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kono et al. “A new Monitoring and Control Method for improving Voltage Stability Margin” 2022 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies – ASIA (ISGT ASIA), IEEE, 11/01/2022, pages 21-25.
In re to claim 1, Kono et al. disclose a computer-based system for power grid reactive resource switching (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract), the computer-based system comprising: (a) at least one processor configured to execute, asynchronously, a monitoring process the voltage monitoring (i.e. see page 21, col., 2, par. 2) and a decision-maker process working in concert resulting in optimal reactive resource switching in a power grid (i.e. see the Abstract), the monitoring process configured to periodically run power flow for each of plural time intervals from a current time interval to a future time interval (i.e. see the continuation power flow in the Abstract and page1, second col. first par.), and the decision-maker process configured to periodically formulate and solve a representative mixed integer linear programming (MILP) optimization problem over the plural time intervals for maintaining voltage within limits of interest (i.e. see the MILP in the abstract and step c1 to step c6 on page 23 columns 1 and 2); and (b) an output interface responsive to results of the decision-maker process, and communicatively coupled to provide at least one output toward the power grid switching in/out reactive resources, the at least one output provided based on the results (i.e. see the Abstract and page 21, column 1, par. 2 to col. 2 par. 2).
In re to claim 2, Kono et al. disclose the computer-based system (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract) of Claim 1, wherein, in instances where the MILP optimization problem fails to solve, the decision-maker process is further configured to employ a fallback rule-based method for maintaining voltage close to within the limits of interest (i.e. see the MILP constraints and solution on page 23, 1st column, pars. 1-3).
In re to claim 3, Kono et al. disclose the computer-based system (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract) of Claim 1, wherein the output interface is configured to provide the at least one output in a manner that enables real-time, multi-interval optimal reactive power dispatching in the power grid (i.e. optimally allocating methods for reactive, power in a competitive environment. see page 21, col. pars. 1-3)
In re to claim 4, Kono et al. disclose the computer-based system (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract) of Claim 1, wherein the at least one output includes at least one control command configured to effectuate at least one field device of the power grid to switch in/out at least one reactive resource of the reactive resources (i.e. optimally allocating methods for reactive, power in a competitive environment. see page 21, col. pars. 1-2)
In re to claim 5, Kono et al. disclose the computer-based system (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract) of Claim 1, wherein the at least one output includes at least one representation of one or more recommendations for at least one field device of the power grid to switch in/out at least one reactive resource of the reactive resources (i.e. see the Abstract and page 21, col. 1, par. 3 to col. 2, par. 1).
In re to claims 11 and 12, Kono et al. disclose the computer-based system (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract) of Claim 1, wherein the decision-maker process is further configured to employ a linear approximation of a model of an operative state of the power grid; wherein the monitoring process and the decision-maker process are configured to work in concert over the plural time intervals to converge on controls for switching in/out the reactive resources to achieve the optimal reactive resource switching in the power grid (i.e. see the Abstract and page 21, col. 1, par. 3 to col. 2, par. 1).
In re to claim 13, Kono et al. disclose the computer-based system (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract) of Claim 1, wherein the decision-maker process is further configured to produce the results based on voltage value, equipment status, network connectivity status, power delivery information (i.e. see page 21, col., 2, par. 2), or other operative condition for the power grid, or a combination thereof, in the current time interval and at least one future time interval of the plural time intervals (i.e. see the Abstract and page 21, column 1, par. 2 to col. 2 par. 2).
In re to claim 14, Kono et al. disclose the computer-based system (i.e. the voltage control devices in the abstract; it is inherent that the method is performed by a computer, see the Abstract) of Claim 1, wherein the decision-maker process is further configured to maintain voltages at points of interest in the power grid to be within respective voltage ranges via switching of reactive resources of the power grid and to minimize the reactive resource switching (i.e. see page 21, col., 2, par. 2 and the abstract and step c1 to step c6 on page 23 columns 1 and 2) ).
In re to claim 29, Kono et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium for power grid reactive resource switching, the non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon a sequence of instructions which, when loaded and executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to (i.e. the techniques adapted to improve computational efficiency, see page 21, col. 2, para. 3): periodically run power flow for each of plural time intervals from a current time interval to a future time interval (i.e. see page 23, col. 1, pars. 1 & 2); asynchronously and in concert with running the power flow, periodically formulate and solve a representative mixed integer linear programming (MILP) optimization problem for maintaining voltage within limits of interest, resulting in an optimal reactive resource switching solution (i.e. see the MILP in the abstract and step c1 to step c6 on page 23 columns 1 and 2); and based on the optimal reactive resource switching solution, provide at least one output toward switching in/out reactive resources of a subject power grid (i.e. see the Abstract and optimally allocating methods for reactive, power in a competitive environment. see page 21, col. pars. 1-2)
In re to claims 15-19 and 25-28, method claims 15-19 and 25-28 are rejected based on the following case law, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device inherently performs the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed Cir. 1986). Therefore, the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 20-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
The examiner has cited columns, line numbers, paragraph numbers, references, or
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In re to claim 6, None of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “the monitoring process is further configured to periodically monitor at least one parameter of the power grid and identify at least one voltage outside the limits of interest at a respective point of interest in the power grid based on the at least one parameter monitored; and the decision-maker process is further configured to converge on the at least one control to resolve the at least one voltage identified as outside of the limits of interest, the decision-maker process further configured to converge by periodically formulating and solving the representative MILP optimization problem and, in instances where the representative MILP optimization problem fails to solve, employing a fallback rule-based method for maintaining voltage close to within the limits of interest”.
In re to claim 20, None of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “converging on the at least one control to resolve the at least one voltage identified as outside of the limits of interest by periodically formulating and solving the representative MILP optimization problem and, in the instances where the representative MILP optimization problem fails to solve, employing a fallback rule-based method for maintaining voltage close to within the limits of interest.”.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record to include either of the above limitations.
In re to claims 7-10, claims 7-10 depend on claim 6, thus is also objected for the same reasons provided above.
In re to claims 21-24, claims 21-24 depend on claim 20 and thus are also objected for the same reasons provided above.
Remarks
The examiner has cited columns, line numbers, paragraph numbers, references, or
figures in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 and § 2123.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEMANE MEHARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7603. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM TO 6 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 5712701276. 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.
/YEMANE MEHARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838