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 Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f)
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: “a communication device configured to”, “a deserialization device configured to”, “a first assignment device configured to”, a second assignment device configured to”, “a topology output device configured to” in claim 8, and “a grid control device configured to” in claim 9.
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 intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8-14 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.
Claims 8 and 9 recite limitations that include “a communication device configured to”, “a deserialization device configured to”, “a first assignment device configured to”, a second assignment device configured to”, “a topology output device configured to” and “a grid control device configured to” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The dependent claims inherit the same limitations therefore rejected under the same condition.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al. (US 7111018 B1.), and in view of De Jong et al. (US 6928488 B1.).
As per claim 1, Goodrich et al. teach
A computer-implemented method (col. 9, lines 17-20, Fig. 1, computer 10) for analyzing network information in an electrical energy supply grid, the method comprising the following steps (col. 4, lines 43-46; col. 16, lines 53-67; col. 17, lines 1-3 editing power grid 462 for network analysis):
receiving, by a communication device, serialized network information in a first application-specific data format (col. 6, lines 12-15, inputting raw data from any EMS format, also see, col. 11, lines 37-42, creating comma separated values (CSV) schema as place holder done by extracting EMS specific data structures, also see, col.12, lines 35-47 for converting EMS raw data to CSV file, CSV teaches serialized information. Also see, col. 5, lines 15-25, the system is importing energy management system raw data or EMS vendor data and converting the data into common information model (CIM) model. The EMS vendor format data teaches the first application data format), the serialized network information containing information about system components (col. 2, lines 58-64, the EMS raw data contains electrical power grid information such as transformers, generators, busbars, A/C lines, D/C Lines, capacitor banks, reactor banks, energy consumers (loads), breakers, switches, conductors, connectivity nodes, fuses, jumpers and grounds at various voltage levels.);
assigning, by a first assignment device, component types based on the information about system components (col. 10, lines 35-42, and lines 46-50, Fig. 5, creating a PsyTerminalTypes table 150 that assigns a numeric value and enumerates the terminal associated with power system equipment type, also see Fig. 13, creation of power system table provides the order in which power system equipment is processed);
assigning, by a second assignment device, component properties based on the information about system components (Fig. 22 -26 displaying network topology editing options which can edit transmission lines, connectivity node, and also can display substations by base voltage. This is referring to assigning nodes. Also see, col. 15, lines 55-67 and col. 16, lines 1-5, describes the network data displaying in a table form with physical equipment associated data such as power system resource index, also a substation name “Voltage Control Zone” referring “a nominal voltage” as predefined voltage level. There is also predefined number of terminals associated with each device. The component properties are referring to data entries such as voltage level in a table data entry form. based on a predefined rule.); and
However, Goodrich et al. do not teach
deserializing the serialized network information by a deserialization device.
providing, by a topology output device, a network topology that, in form of a graph, contains types and properties of the system components in a second application-specific data format
In the same field of endeavor, De Jong et al. teach
deserializing the serialized network information by a deserialization device (Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 30-44, a deserialization process steps via system 60 that includes a formatter 80, deserialization decision loop 82 that performs the deserialization, also see Fig. 9, deserialization process,);
providing, by a topology output device, a network topology that, in form of a graph, contains types and properties of the system components in a second application-specific data format (De Jong et al., Fig.9, step 570 teaches a deserialization into a graph format. Also see, col.4, lines 12-14).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data conversion system taught by Goodrich et al. and to include the deserialization steps taught by De Jong et al. into the system. This would have been obvious because both Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach a data conversion system to construct data structure. By adding the deserialization method taught by De Jong et al. the data conversion can be fluent by selecting serialized data and use the decision loops to process it. Also, it will incorporate the deserialization process into a graph format. (De Jong et al., col. 8, lines 30-44, Fig. 9, col.4, lines 12-14).
As per claim 2, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, which comprises using the network topology to control the electrical energy supply grid by way of a grid control device (Goodrich et al.., col. 13, lines 66-67, Network topology editor 404 can be used to edit the power system data).
As per claim 3, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the deserializing step comprises using a rule-based method for a deserialization, in which identification columns in data tables are recognized based on the serialized network information, and the system components are recognized as being connected to one another based on identifiers in the identification columns (De Jong et al., Fig. 3: the arrow pointing both direction from serialization rule to deserialization services represents that both process are communicating. Col. 8, lines 30-44, a deserialization process steps via system 60 that includes a formatter 80 that has a set of rules for the particular object, deserialization decision loop 82 that performs the deserialization, also see Fig. 9, deserialization process, deserialization services #60 and deserialization decision loop 82, Fig. 5, deserialization architecture #152.Goodrich et al., col. 15, lines 14-17, the target database 654 is merged with the look up database 656 by only unique entry).
As per claim 4, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, which comprises using a rule-based method to recognize the component types (Goodrich et al., col. 3, lines 50-57, in the power system, the naming of substations and various power system component types are unique. As an example, most EMS network topology model is given a substation named “airport”. For EMS format, all the substation must have a unique name and the foreign substation has to be renamed.).
As per claim 6, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, which comprises using at least one of the following components for the system components: a transformer, a line, a switching device, protective equipment, a grid regulator (Goodrich et al, col. 4, lines 14-16, transformers are similarly used between companies when the source and target voltage are different. Col. 4, lines 11-12, Tie lines are inter-substation transmission lines that connect two different EMS data format. Col. 11, line 44, a switch.).
As per claim 7, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, which comprises assigning component properties to recognized component types based on a predefined taxonomy and a predefined set of rules (Goodrich et al., Fig. 22 -26 displaying network topology editing options which can edit transmission lines, connectivity node, and also can display substations by base voltage. This is referring to assigning nodes. Also see, col. 15, lines 55-67 and col. 16, lines 1-5, describes the network data displayed in a table form with physical equipment associated data such as power system resource index, also a substation name “Voltage Control Zone” referring “a nominal voltage” as predefined voltage level. There is also predefined number of terminals associated with each device. The component properties are referring to data entries such as voltage level in a table data entry form. Also see, De Jong et al. Fig. 3, arrow pointing both direction system 62 to system 60, col. 8, lines 30-45, a deserialization process steps via system 60 for deserialization of serial stream into a graph of objects that includes a formatter 80 that has a set of rules for the particular object,.).
As per claim 8, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach
An arrangement for analyzing network information in an electrical energy supply grid, the arrangement comprising (Abstract, electric power grid databases Converting multiple databases in to single one):
a communication device configured to receive serialized network information in a first application-specific data format (please see analysis of claim 1 for further clarification),
the serialized network information containing information about system components (please see analysis of claim 1 for further clarification);
a deserialization device configured to deserialize the serialized network information (please see analysis of claim 1 for further clarification);
a first assignment device configured to assign component types based on the information about system components (please see analysis of claim 1 for further clarification);
a second assignment device configured to assign component properties based on the information about the system components (please see analysis of claim 1 for further clarification); and
a topology output device configured to provide a network topology, in form of a graph containing types and properties of the system components, in a second application-specific data format (please see analysis of claim 1 for further clarification).
As per claim 15, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. teach,
A non-transitory computer program product comprising instructions that, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1(Goodrich et al. Fig. 1. col. 9, lines 17-20, Fig. 1, computer 10, also see De Jong et al., claim 21 teaches a computer readable medium).
Please refer to the claim 1 above for further analysis.
As per claims 9,10,11,13, and 14, please refer to the analysis of claims 2,3,4, 6 and 7, as they recite the same limitations.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al. (US 7111018 B1.), and in view of De Jong et al. (US 6928488 B1.), and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20240110964 A1.).
As per claim 5, the combination of Goodrich et al. and De Jong et al. do not teach
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, which comprises using machine learning to recognize the component types.
In the same field of endeavor Gupta et al. teach
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, which comprises using machine learning to recognize the component types (Gupta et al., abstract, using machine learning technique to obtain a network graph that contains grid assets. Also see para 39, using machine learning to store meta data of the power lines).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power grid integration method taught by Goodrich et al. and to include machine learning method for network grid analysis taught by Gupta et al. into the system. This would have been obvious because both Goodrich et al. and Gupta et al. teach network analysis in a power grid. By adding machine learning technique taught by Gupta et al., it will be convenient to determine whether the network graph edges are negative or positive link and the data structure model can be updated based on the graph result (Gupta et al., abstract, para 39).
As per claim 12, please refer to the analysis of claim 5 above, as they recite the same limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)272-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights