Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the 5/13/2024 communication(s). As per the claims filed 5/13/2024
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 14 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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.
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 10-13 are rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In summary, claim 10 recites " A state estimation arrangement for a state estimation of an electrical distribution network". The state estimation arrangement failed to claim any structure or hardware. The devices recited in the claim cannot be considered to be hardware since the specification explicitly defines a “device” to include software components. Specifically, paragraph 0017 recites “ A device within the meaning of the invention includes, for example, processors, data memories and screens. Devices are e.g. computers such as e.g. servers which include data processor resources and data memory resources and can exchange data with other computers. They can also be software modules executed on a cloud infrastructure, i.e. a spatially distributed server and database architecture. Accordingly, the recited state estimation arrangement is software per se and is not a "process", a "machine", a "manufacture", or a "composition of matter" as defined in 35 USC 101.
Claims 11-13 depend on claim 10 and fail to address the deficiencies of claim 10, therefore they are rejected for the same reason as claim 10 above.
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-AIA ), 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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based on a network model taking into account nodes and switching devices and measurement locations, for a multiplicity of load states” it is unclear what the measurement locations refer to, it is unclear whether the measurement locations refer to individual locations separate from the nodes and switching devices or if they are associated with the switching devices. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the measurement locations to be separate locations.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claims 11-13 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 14, including all limitations of claim 1 is also rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 101 rejections set forth above.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention as recited in claims 1-14 to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
The current claims are directed towards a way to estimate the operating state of an electrical distribution grid, especially when many nodes are not directly measured. It first runs many load-flow simulations on a network model that includes nodes, switches, and measurement points. Those simulations are done for different load conditions and switch positions, and the results are stored in a dataset. From that dataset, the system builds probability distributions for electrical values at each node. A state estimation device then uses current switch positions and live measurement values to infer the most likely grid state. The key estimator is a hidden Markov model, which treats the true node values as hidden states and the measurements as observable outputs.
The closest prior art of record Kumar US (US 20230327438 A1) and Srinivasan (US 20200209841 A1) fail to teach or suggest the invention as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 14. The other cited prior art of record (see attached 892) pertain to individual claim limitations.
Kumar discloses a system and method for determining the state estimate of a power grid by dividing the power grid into smaller sub-sections, generating state estimates for each sub-section, and then generating a consensus among the sub-sections. In one example, the method may include partitioning a section of the power distribution grid into a plurality of sub-sections based on loads distributed within the section of the power distribution grid, generating a plurality of state estimates for the plurality of sub-sections based on load distribution within the plurality of sub-sections and a Kalman Filter model, generating an aggregate state estimate for the section of the power distribution grid based on an aggregate of the plurality of state estimates and a boundary consensus between the plurality of sub-sections from a previous state estimation, and displaying data about the aggregate state estimate via a user interface (abstract).
Srinivasan discloses receiving historical sensor data of a renewable energy asset for a first time period, identifying historical log data in one or more log sources, retrieving dates of the identified historical log data, retrieving sequences of historical sensor data using the dates, training hidden Markov models using the sequences of historical sensor data to identify probability of shifting states of one or more components of the renewable energy asset (abstract).
None of the prior art of record, alone or in any reasonable combination disclose the limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 14. Included but not limited to:
“ carry out load flow calculations and to store a respective load flow result in a load flow data set, the load flow data set for each node in the network model providing a probability distribution for a respective value of at least one first electrical variable; using a state estimation device to determine a state estimation including respective voltage values at the nodes for the electrical energy distribution network; and taking into account the load flow data set and present switching states of the switching devices and present measurement values having been detected at the measurement locations, while using a hidden Markov model to determine a most probable value for a second electrical variable for each node.”
Due to at least their dependency on independent claim 1, the prior art also fails to disclose the limitations of claims 2-9, 11-13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights