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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/705,623 filed on 04/29/2024, is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2023/128549, International Filing Date: 10/31/2023, which claims foreign priority to CN 202211486748.8, filed on 11/25/2022.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 04/29/2024. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “A method and device for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group, an apparatus and a medium” should be replaced with “A method and device for performing a load rejection test on a pumped storage group, and an apparatus and a medium implementing the method” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In par. [0042], the formula
x
l
=
E
(
X
)
x
l
+
1
=
E
X
l
+
1
-
∑
j
=
1
l
l
!
j
!
(
l
-
j
)
!
E
X
j
x
l
-
j
+
1
,
l
=
1
,
2
,
…
should be replaced with
x
l
=
E
(
X
)
x
l
+
1
=
E
X
l
+
1
-
∑
j
=
1
l
l
!
j
!
l
-
j
!
E
X
j
x
l
-
j
+
1
,
j
=
1
,
2
,
…
l
, and the index
l
and
j
should be described for correct expression.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 3, the formula
x
l
=
E
(
X
)
x
l
+
1
=
E
X
l
+
1
-
∑
j
=
1
l
l
!
j
!
(
l
-
j
)
!
E
X
j
x
l
-
j
+
1
,
l
=
1
,
2
,
…
should be replaced with
x
l
=
E
(
X
)
x
l
+
1
=
E
X
l
+
1
-
∑
j
=
1
l
l
!
j
!
l
-
j
!
E
X
j
x
l
-
j
+
1
,
j
=
1
,
2
,
…
l
, and the index
l
and
j
should be described for correct expression.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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) 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.
The current application includes limitations in claim 6 that do not use the word “means”, but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 6 includes a limitation/element that use generic placeholder modules that are coupled with functional language, configured to “determine” or “describe” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of the “modules” are interpreted as components of a general computer (see specification – module 310, 320, 330, 340 [0078-0082, 0090, Fig. 3], computers, computing system [0091-0101, Fig. 4]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claims 1 and 6, claim recites “the target random variable” in “determining (or determine) an origin moment of the target random variable based on each probability distribution model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the known random variable” in “wherein the known random variable comprises at least one of an upper reservoir water level of a pumped storage power station, a lower reservoir water level of the pumped storage power station, a guide vane opening or a bearing bush clearance” is ambiguous because it is not clear whether the limitation refers to one of “at least one known random variable”, which is recited in earlier limitation. If yes, the limitation should be replaced with “the at least one known variable” to avoid the rejection due to lack of antecedent basis.
As per claim 2-5, 7 and 8, claims are also rejected because base claim 1 is rejected.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group, (1.A) the method comprising:
determining a probability distribution model of at least one known random variable corresponding to a target pumped storage group, (1.B.1) and determining an origin moment of the target random variable based on each probability distribution model, (1.B.2) the target random variable being an undetermined random variable in the load rejection test for the target pumped storage group, the target random variable including at least one of a group speed, a volute pressure, a group swing, a vibration or a bearing temperature of the pumped storage group during load rejection; (1.B.3)
determining semi-invariants of the target random variable based on the origin moment of the target random variable; (1.C)
determining a probability density function of the target random variable based on the semi-invariants, and determining an overall offset risk value of the target random variable based on the probability density function; (1.D)
and determining an objective function based on the overall offset risk value, (1.E.1) and determining a combination of target decision contents in the load rejection test for the target pumped storage group based on the objective function, (1.E.2) so as to perform the load rejection test on the target pumped storage group based on the combination of the target decision contents; (1.E.3)
wherein the known random variable comprises at least one of an upper reservoir water level of a pumped storage power station, a lower reservoir water level of the pumped storage power station, a guide vane opening or a bearing bush clearance; (1.B.4)
and wherein determining the probability distribution model of the at least one known random variable corresponding to the target pumped storage group includes:
describing random distributions of the upper reservoir water level and the lower reservoir water level of the pumped storage power station through a Weibull function respectively, (1.B.5) so as to obtain a probability distribution model corresponding to the upper reservoir water level of the pumped storage power station and a probability distribution model corresponding to the lower reservoir water level of the pumped storage power station; (1.B.6)
describing an uncertainty of the guide vane opening through normal distribution, (1.B.7) so as to obtain a probability distribution model corresponding to the guide vane opening; (1.B.8)
and describing random distribution of the bearing bush clearance through a beta function, (1.B.9) so as to obtain a probability distribution model corresponding to the bearing bush clearance. (1.B.10)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.B.1) – (1.E.2) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group” and “so as to perform the load rejection test on the target pumped storage group based on the combination of the target decision contents”;
In Claim 6: “A device for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group” and various “module”’s;
In Claim 7: “An electronic apparatus” and “at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processor, and the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to implement the method”;
In Claim 8: “A computer-readable storage medium configured to cause, when executed by a processor, the processor to implementing the method”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the method with an intended purpose , i.e. for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group. The load rejection test for a pumped storage group represent a standard test for standard elements in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation/step “so as to perform the load rejection test on the target pumped storage group based on the combination of the target decision contents” is an intended purpose and not much weight can be given to the limitation. Even if some weight is given to the limitation, the limitation represents standard test activity in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 6, the additional elements “A device for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the device with an intended purpose , i.e. for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group. The load rejection test for a pumped storage group represent a standard test for standard elements in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitations/elements, i.e. various “module”(s), represent components of a general computer and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 7, the additional elements “An electronic apparatus” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the apparatus with a particular operation or field of use. The limitations/elements “at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processor, and the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to implement the method” represent components of a general computer and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 8, the additional element in the preamble “A computer-readable storage medium configured to cause, when executed by a processor, the processor to implementing the method” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation even fails to link the media with a particular operation or field of use. The limitation/element “a processor” represents a component of a general computer and it is not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Chen, Zhang, Gao, Li, Do, Mao and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-8, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 8, The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “A computer readable storage medium” is a signal per se under BRI. (see MPEP 2106.03 II the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record below are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chen (CN 111104734 A) discloses A method for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group (pumping energy accumulating power station machine set load rejection experiment … method [abs], a pumped storage power station machine set load rejection experiment … method [pg. 2 line 8-9]).
Zhang (Zhang, Hao, and et al. "Stochastic dynamic modeling and simulation of a pump-turbine in load-rejection process." Journal of Energy Storage 35 (2021): 102196) discloses A method for a load rejection test for a pumped storage group, (methods in this paper can provide a theoretical basis for the transient analysis and control of pump-turbines during transient process [pg. 9 left col par 1], load-rejection process [abs, par. 2 left col par. 1], pumped storage, pump-turbine [pg. 1 left col par. 1]) the method comprising:
determining a probability distribution model to a target pumped storage group (stochastic model of the pump-turbine, probability density function [pg. 3 right col par 2 from the bottom – pg. 6 left col par. 2]) using a momentum equation (momentum equation [pg. 3 left col eq. 12]).
Li (CN 110059345 A) discloses reciting a moment in an equation for calculating torque for water pump turbine (water pump water turbine set iteration calculating process, calculating head and torque by the interpolation function [pg. 11 line 19-20], moment after transformation … converted speed [pg. 11 line 25-26]) and recites the random number selections in the pump turbine mechanical control formulas (control parameter, random assignment [pg. 15 line 7 - 19, formula 3 and 4]).
Gao (Gao, Weixuan, and Dimitry Gorinevsky. "Probabilistic modeling for optimization of resource mix with variable generation and storage." IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 35, no. 5 (2020): 4036-4045) discloses efficient, practical tools for probabilistic reliability analysis of grid with very high penetration of renewables and storage modeling random variables. Machine learning models are built from historical data and accurately describe probability distributions for interdependent variables (solar, wind, load) including extreme (tail) events. The tools combine the models to compute probabilities, … for a planning scenario with given variable generation and storage capacities. The accuracy of predicting the probabilities based on the previous year training data is statistically validated (modeling of
interdependent random variables [pg. 4037 left col par. 1- pg. 4043 right col par. 5], probabilistic reliability analysis of grid … renewables and storage, probability distribution [pg. 4044 left col par. 3]).
Do (Do, Binh, Thai Tran, and Ninh Nguyen. "Renewable energy integration in Vietnam’s power system: Generation adequacy assessment and strategic implications." Energies 14, no. 12 (2021): 3541) discloses a method of assessing generation adequacy using a probabilistic modeling approach (probabilistic
modeling approach to evaluate how the generation fleet … can meet the
demand, despite the fast-changing renewable energy sources ‘RES’ generation [abs, pg. 4 par. 1-3]).
Mao (Mao X, and et al. Improving internal fluid stability of pump turbine in load rejection process by co-adjusting inlet valve and guide vane. Journal of Energy Storage. 2022 Jun 1;50:104623) discloses controlling inlet valve and guide vane of pump turbine to achieve operation stability of the pump turbine during load rejection period (3D co-adjustment of inlet valve and guide vane is proposed to improve operation stability of pump turbine during load rejection period [pg. 2 left col par. 2-3]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights