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
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 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:
“grid-protection unit protection function (GPU PF)” in claim 1;
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 does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, the phrase “wherein a grid-protection unit (GPU) including” should be changed to “wherein a grid-protection unit (GPU) includes”, to correct the grammatical error. The phrase “wherein at least one IBR including” should be changed to “wherein at least one IBR includes”, to correct the grammatical error.
In claims 4, 14 and 20, the phrase “wherein mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) optimization methods are be applied initially” should be changed to “wherein mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) optimization methods are [[be]] applied initially”, to correct the grammatical error.
In claims 6 and 16, the phrase “modelling of a power system including parameters” should be changed “modelling of a power system includes parameters”, to correct the grammatical error.
In claim 7, the phrase “modelling of a power system including parameters” should be changed “modelling of a power system includes parameters”, to correct the grammatical error.
In claim 8, the phrase “modelling of IBR supervisory controller (IBR SC) units including” should be changed “modelling of IBR supervisory controller (IBR SC) units includes”, to correct the grammatical error.
Claim 9 has similar error as above and should be amended accordingly.
In claim 11, the phrase “they together optimized the optimized protection system performance” should be changed to “they together optimize[[d]] the optimized protection system performance”, to correct the grammatical error.
In claims 4 and 14, the phrase “all power system faults be cleared” should be changed to “all power system faults [[be]] are cleared”, to correct the grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "like currents or voltages" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “like” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as "[[like]] comprising currents or voltages".
Claims 2-10 are also rejected since they depend on claim 1 and have inherited the same deficiencies.
Claim 2 recites a limitation “the system” which causes ambiguity. It is unclear if the recited “system” refers to the “protection system” or the “power system” mentioned beforehand. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “the protection system”.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the phrase "an IBR output/contribution e.g., voltage, current, frequency, and power factor (Cos Phi)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as "an IBR output/contribution [[e.g.,]] comprising voltage, current, frequency, [[and]] or power factor (Cos Phi)".
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the phrases "can be planned", “can also be defined” and “can be applied” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited limitations of the “planned”, “defined” or “applied” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the phrases have been construed as "are planned", “are also defined” and “are applied”.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20, the phrases "may have" and “can have” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited limitations after the term “have” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the phrases have been construed as "has", “has”.
Claim 5 recites a limitation “the system” which causes ambiguity. It is unclear if the recited “system” refers to the “protection system” or the “power system” mentioned beforehand. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “the protection system”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases "should be capable of” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited limitations after the term “should” is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the phrases have been construed as "is capable of”.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the phrase "parameters k1 of generators, e.g., controller gains and limits, wherein the inverter-based resources (IBRs) are generators which include IBRs or synchronous generator-based generators like gas turbines or steam turbines, e.g., in coal or nuclear power plants" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as "parameters k1 of generators[[, e.g.,]] comprising controller gains and limits, wherein the inverter-based resources (IBRs) are generators which include IBRs or synchronous generator-based generators like gas turbines or steam turbines[[, e.g.,]] in coal or nuclear power plants".
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "when protection relays open their circuit breaker, e.g., based on over-currents or under-voltages" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as "when protection relays open their circuit breaker[[, e.g.,]] based on over-currents or under-voltages".
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "parameters k3, e.g., controller gains and limits" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as "parameters k3[[, e.g.,]] comprising controller gains and limits".
Claims 9, 10, 16, 18, 19 have similar error as above, and should be amended accordingly.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over WANG (CN 114825365 A, hereinafter as “WANG”).
Regarding claim 1, WANG teaches:
A protection system for a power system consisting of power lines, transformers, generation units, and loads, the protection system comprising:
one or more grid-protection units (GPUs) (“soft switch” in [Abstract] and [0009]) associated with the power lines, the transformers, the generation units, or the loads of the power system, wherein a grid-protection unit (GPU) includes:
at least one grid-protection unit protection function (GPU PF) that detects fault signals comprising currents or voltages and disconnects a power line, a transformer, a generation unit, or a load based on the GPU PF ([0003]: soft switches disconnects a load when detecting fault signals or currents/voltages indicating imbalance of feeder and load);
a plurality of inverter-based resources (IBRs) (“inverter-based distributed power supply” in [Abstract] and [0009]) as the generation units, wherein at least one IBR includes:
an inverter-based resource supervisory controller (IBR SC) (each “inverter-based distributed power supply” has its own controller to control the power supply) that controls an inverter-based resource (IBR) output;
a processor; and
a memory for storing algorithms executed by the processor, wherein the algorithms comprise a protection system co-optimizer for co-optimization of the IBR SC and the GPU PF such that they together optimize the protection system performance regarding dependability, security, and operation speed for any kind of grid faults ([Abstract] and [0009]: an co-optimizer coordinate the operations of the “inverter-based distribute power supply” and “soft switch” to optimize the protection performance to reduce voltage fluctuation).
WANG teaches specifically (underlines are added by Examiner for emphasis):
[Abstract] The invention claims a grid reactive voltage control method considering source load prediction error and mutation. firstly initializing the grid data and constructing active and reactive power, active loss and capacity constraint condition based on the inverter-based distributed power supply and soft switch, then constructing conventional voltage adjusting device of intra-day scheduling stage, based on distributed power supply of the inverter, the coordination and optimization target function of soft switch, combining constraint condition adopts random analysis based on k-means scene reduction to give output configuration. then by the optimization result and prediction deviation, constructing rolling optimization control target function based on model predictive control (MPC) of intra-day control stage, determining distributed power supply based on inverter, output scheme of soft switch. finally, by the optimization scheme and generating mutation, using autonomous control algorithm to determine the real-time control stage of the inverter-based distributed power supply, voltage reactive power scheduling optimization of the soft switch, to relieve the problem of voltage fluctuation caused by the distributed power supply intermittent and so on.
[0003] Devices such as inverter-controlled DGs and soft-switching have attracted much attention due to their flexibility. Inverter-based DGs have many advantages such as loss minimization, reactive power support, and voltage regulation. When the existing distributed power equipment based on inverter control is used for voltage regulation, system loss will be increased. Soft switching equipment is often used to reduce losses and balance feeder load, and the voltage regulation effect is not good. Voltage regulation equipment based on power electronics and conventional voltage regulation equipment will coexist in the regional power grid, but the comprehensive impact of different devices on the energy-saving operation of the regional power grid has not been studied, and the conventional voltage regulation equipment cannot be operated frequently due to its physical limitations. At present, there is no reactive power and voltage control method for the power grid in response to the source load prediction error and sudden change. Therefore, a grid reactive power and voltage control method that considers the source load prediction error and sudden change can be proposed to eliminate the power generation caused by high-penetration renewable energy. risks of.
Invention content:
[0009] Step 5: Enter the real-time control stage. Based on the results of the intraday control stage and the sudden change of power generation/load, the autonomous control algorithm is used to determine the voltage and reactive power scheduling optimization of inverter-based distributed power equipment and soft switches to alleviate the problem of solar radiation. The problem of voltage rise and fall caused by intermittent behavior and other meteorological factors.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG in view of NAIDU (US 20240063626 A1, hereinafter as “NAIDU”).
Regarding claim 17, WANG teaches:
A protection system for a power system consisting of power lines, transformers, generation units, and loads, the protection system comprising:
one or more grid protection units (GPUs) (“soft switch” in [Abstract] and [0009]) that represent all other existing protection devices in a power grid; and
an equipment-level protection scheme which contains first control units, wherein the first control unit controls an inverter-based resource (IBR) output (“inverter-based distributed power supply” in [Abstract] and [0009]. each “inverter-based distributed power supply” has its own controller to control the power supply); and
a system-level optimizer for co-optimization of an IBR the first control unit, together with the one or more grid protection units (GPUs) such that they together optimize the global protection performance regarding dependability, security, and operation speed for any kind of grid faults, wherein the equipment-level protection scheme and the system-level optimizer to adaptively provide an IBR optimized fault-level adjustment ([Abstract] and [0009]: an co-optimizer coordinate the operations of the “inverter-based distribute power supply” and “soft switch” to optimize the protection performance to reduce voltage fluctuation).
WANG teaches all the limitations except a second control unit which identifies one or more fault types and one or more fault locations in the power grid wherein the equipment-level protection scheme and the system-level optimizer to adaptively provide an IBR optimized fault-level adjustment based on the fault location of the one or more fault locations.
However, NAIDU teaches in an analogous art:
unit identifies one or more fault types and one or more fault locations in the power grid ([0178]: “The present subject matter thus provides an accurate method to classify a fault and identify the zone of the transmission line in which the fault is located. The method is robust against the fault types, location and fault resistances. Thus, for inverter-based resources or traditional sources the present subject matter provides high dependability, with increased speed and security”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG based on the teaching of NAIDU, to make the optimized protection system to further comprise a second control unit which identifies one or more fault types and one or more fault locations in the power grid wherein the equipment-level protection scheme and the system-level optimizer to adaptively provide an IBR optimized fault-level adjustment based on the fault location of the one or more fault locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it helps provide “high dependability, with increased speed and security”, as NAIDU teaches in [0178].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if amended to overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights