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 1-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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: "isolated operation planning unit", "restoration work planning unit", "screen output unit" in claim claims 1-11.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The "isolated operation planning unit", "restoration work planning unit", "screen output unit" are part of a computer CPU (see Paragraph [0028], and FIG. 1)
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 1-11 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 limitations "isolated operation planning unit", "restoration work planning unit", "screen output unit" invokes 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. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify any specific structure that is performing each respective 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. For the purpose of examination, examiner is interpreting the limitation to refer to any known components that performs the respective functions recited.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. USPGPUB 2020/0153273 (hereinafter “Sun”), in view of WADA JP 2015/177665 A (hereinafter “WADA”).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a restoration decision-making assistance apparatus for connecting a power system section disconnected due to a power system accident to a power system again ([Abstract] “Systems and methods for configuring micro-grids to restore some power in a power distribution grid (PDG) in response to a power disruption over the PDG”, wherein examiner interpreted systems for restoring power in response to a power disruption as a restoration decision-making assistance apparatus for connecting a power system section disconnected due to a power system accident to a power system again), the restoration decision-making assistance apparatus comprising:
an isolated operation planning unit configured to define a switch section divided by adjacent switches for the disconnected power system section, and to prepare an isolated operation plan with at least a switch section which includes a distributed power source therein or in which a power source vehicle is arranged as an isolated operation section ([Abstract] “A computing system configured to receive current condition information from devices in the PDG. Form a minimum spanning forest (MSF) to identify a set of micro-grids, each spanning tree in a forest is a self-sustained islanded micro-grid network”, Paragraph [0112] “FIG. 8 shows three SSIGs formed by switching off the corresponding edges to form a minimum spanning forest, including SSIG-1 810, SSIG-2 820 and SSIG-3 830. Each SSIG is a connected graph having different generation sources and are independent spanning trees of the forest. Note that islanding scheme is done only once before picking up the loads. After forming islands, once each of them is energized and start restoring the service to critical loads, only load switches and dispatchable DGs are controlled within each isolated area”, wherein examiner interpreted computing system receiving identifying micro-grids including the three self-sustaining islanded grids formed when switches are off, as shown in FIG. 8, as an isolated operation planning unit configured to define a switch section divided by adjacent switches for the disconnected power system section, and wherein examiner interpreted controlling load switches and dispatchable DGs as preparing an isolated operation plan with at least a switch section which includes a distributed power source therein).
Sun does not explicitly teach a restoration work planning unit configured to prepare a restoration work plan for a switch section in which an accident or a damaged facility is present in the power system.
However, WADA teaches a restoration work planning unit configured to prepare a restoration work plan for a switch section in which an accident or a damaged facility is present in the power system ([Abstract] “A disaster recovery supporting system comprises: a communication unit 4 for acquiring disaster information including the occurrence date and time, contents, and scale of a disaster; and a priority planning task 5 that figures out priority users including a user expected to have high public interest, a user expected to be accommodating disaster victims, and a user expected to have a risk of life, on the basis of the present time, a power supply system stored in a system database 2, user information stored in a section database 3, and the disaster information obtained by the communication unit 4, and makes a plan to give the priority users higher recovery priority”, [DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS] “The route formulation task 6 formulates a system route to be restored from the power source side based on the power supply system stored in the system database 2 in order to supply power according to the recovery priority order formulated in the order formulation task 5. It is a task program. That is, a power transmission procedure / recovery route indicating which section on the power source side should be restored / transmitted in order to supply power early to the section set with a high power transmission priority in the ranking formulation task 5 Is formulated based on the power supply system”, wherein examiner interpreted a disaster recovery supporting system that formulates a system route to be restored from the power source side according to the recovery priority order as a restoration work plan unit configured to prepare a restoration work plan for a switch section in which an accident or a damaged facility is present in the power system).
Sun, and WADA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to restoration .
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above restoration decision-making assistance apparatus, as taught by Sun, and incorporating restoration work plan, as taught by WADA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve restoring power to consumers/loads/facilities with the highest priority when a disaster occurs, as suggested by WADA (see [BACKGROUND-ART], and [DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS]).
Regarding claim 7, Sun, and WADA teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Sun further teaches further comprising a screen output unit configured to output an isolated operation plan prepared by the isolated operation planning unit (Paragraph [0046] “Step 130 includes method 100 using a hardware processor 155 of a computer 151 to form a minimum spanning forest (MSF) to identify a set of micro-grids, wherein each spanning tree in a forest is configured to be a micro-grid that is a self-sustained islanded micro-grid network, when a power disruption condition is detected”, Paragraph [0048] “Step 134 using the hardware processor 155 to identify switches that restore power to the subset of critical loads with different forest configurations based on buses that are switched on, to determine a subset of micro-grids from the set of micro-grids that are less susceptible for link failures in the restoration period”, Paragraph [0051] “Still referring to step 140 of FIG. 1A, using a computer device 157 to activating switches using a computing device of computing devices of a computing hardware system communicatively linked to utility grid via information network 153”, and Paragraph [0132-0133], wherein examiner interpreted computer used to identify set of micro-grids, and identifying, and activate switches that restore power to subset of critical loads as screen output unit configured to output an isolated operation plan prepared by isolated operation planning unit to a screen, wherein a computer includes a display device).
WADA further teaches a restoration work plan prepared by the restoration work planning unit to a screen ([DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS] “the following disaster recovery support program may be installed in a general-purpose computer”, wherein examiner interpreted disaster recovery support program installed on a computer as a restoration work plan prepared by the restoration work planning unit to a screen).
Regarding claim 12, Sun teaches a restoration decision-making assistance method that is implemented by using a computer and connects a power system section disconnected due to an accident of a power system to the power system again ([Abstract] “Systems and methods for configuring micro-grids to restore some power in a power distribution grid (PDG) in response to a power disruption over the PDG”, wherein examiner interpreted systems for restoring power in response to a power disruption as a restoration decision-making assistance method that is implemented by using a computer and connects a power system section disconnected due to a power system accident to a power system again), the restoration decision-making assistance method comprising:
defining a switch section divided by adjacent switches for the disconnected power system section, and preparing an isolated operation plan with at least a switch section having a distributed power source therein or a switch section in which a power source vehicle is arranged as an isolated operation section ([Abstract] “A computing system configured to receive current condition information from devices in the PDG. Form a minimum spanning forest (MSF) to identify a set of micro-grids, each spanning tree in a forest is a self-sustained islanded micro-grid network”, Paragraph [0112] “FIG. 8 shows three SSIGs formed by switching off the corresponding edges to form a minimum spanning forest, including SSIG-1 810, SSIG-2 820 and SSIG-3 830. Each SSIG is a connected graph having different generation sources and are independent spanning trees of the forest. Note that islanding scheme is done only once before picking up the loads. After forming islands, once each of them is energized and start restoring the service to critical loads, only load switches and dispatchable DGs are controlled within each isolated area”, wherein examiner interpreted computing system receiving identifying micro-grids including the three self-sustaining islanded grids formed when switches are off, as shown in FIG. 8, as defining a switch section divided by adjacent switches for the disconnected power system section, and preparing an isolated operation plan with at least a switch section having a distributed power source therein, and wherein examiner interpreted controlling load switches and dispatchable DGs as preparing an isolated operation plan with at least a switch section which includes a distributed power source therein).
Sun does not explicitly teach preparing a restoration work plan for a switch section in which an accident or damaged facility is present in the power system.
However, WADA teaches preparing a restoration work plan for a switch section in which an accident or damaged facility is present in the power system ([Abstract] “A disaster recovery supporting system comprises: a communication unit 4 for acquiring disaster information including the occurrence date and time, contents, and scale of a disaster; and a priority planning task 5 that figures out priority users including a user expected to have high public interest, a user expected to be accommodating disaster victims, and a user expected to have a risk of life, on the basis of the present time, a power supply system stored in a system database 2, user information stored in a section database 3, and the disaster information obtained by the communication unit 4, and makes a plan to give the priority users higher recovery priority”, [DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS] “The route formulation task 6 formulates a system route to be restored from the power source side based on the power supply system stored in the system database 2 in order to supply power according to the recovery priority order formulated in the order formulation task 5. It is a task program. That is, a power transmission procedure / recovery route indicating which section on the power source side should be restored / transmitted in order to supply power early to the section set with a high power transmission priority in the ranking formulation task 5 Is formulated based on the power supply system”, wherein examiner interpreted a disaster recovery supporting system that formulates a system route to be restored from the power source side according to the recovery priority order as preparing a restoration work plan for a switch section in which an accident or a damaged facility is present in the power system).
Sun, and WADA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to restoration .
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above restoration decision-making assistance method, as taught by Sun, and incorporating restoration work plan, as taught by WADA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve restoring power to consumers/loads/facilities with the highest priority when a disaster occurs, as suggested by WADA (see [BACKGROUND-ART], and [DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. [USPGPUB 2023/0361565] teaches system and method to simulate power distribution system reconfigurations for multiple contingencies.
Wu et al. [USPGPUB 2021/0013737] teaches systems, methods, and computer-readable media are disclosed for autonomous restoration of power systems after natural disasters.
HASTINGS et al. [USPGPUB 2023/0013208] teaches an automatic isolation switch (AIS) system is provided for controlling a supply of electrical power to a load.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHRUVKUMAR PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5814. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:30 AM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571)272-4105. 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.
/D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights