DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2024; was filed with this application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
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 .
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
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 06/04/2024.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 1-18 are directed towards a method, claim 19 is directed towards a computer-readable medium. and claim 20 is directed towards an apparatus, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 19, and 20) are directed to managing grid and energy data, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1, A grid planning method for transmission and distribution grids, the method comprising:
using the grid measure data to generate grid configurations; and
communicating the grid configurations to an analysis component;
at the analysis component, performing steps for the distribution grid, the steps comprising:
in response to receiving the grid configurations, determining, for each grid configuration, a first set of power flows for predetermined units of time within the planning period;
using the power flows to obtain boundary condition data associated with boundaries between the distribution grid and the transmission grid; and
communicating the first set of power flows to a distribution-side evaluation component;
at the analysis component, performing steps for the transmission grid, the steps comprising:
and
communicating the second set of power flows to a transmission-side evaluation component;
at the distribution-side evaluation component and the transmission-side evaluation component, performing steps comprising.
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interactions such as business relations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of component (Claims 19 computer-readable medium, component; Claim 20 apparatus, processor, component). The claims recite the steps are performed by the component.
The limitations of
at a planning component, performing steps for each of a transmission grid and a distribution grid, the steps comprising:
in response to receiving grid equipment data and receiving demand and renewable energy (RE) information associated with a planning period, generating grid measure data;
in response to receiving the grid configurations and the boundary condition data, generating, for each grid configuration, frame grid configuration data;
using the frame grid configuration data to calculate optimal grid configuration data;
using the optimal grid configuration data to generate a second set of power flows; in response to receiving the grid configurations and respective first set of power flows and second set of power flows, generating investment cost and operation cost data;
computing and exchanging a differential cost for each grid configuration; and
using the investment cost and operation cost data and the differential cost to generate a grid plan.
are mere data gathering and processing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by component. The component are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the component is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The component is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the component. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and processing.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
at a planning component, performing steps for each of a transmission grid and a distribution grid, the steps comprising:
in response to receiving grid equipment data and receiving demand and renewable energy (RE) information associated with a planning period, generating grid measure data;
in response to receiving the grid configurations and the boundary condition data, generating, for each grid configuration, frame grid configuration data;
using the frame grid configuration data to calculate optimal grid configuration data;
using the optimal grid configuration data to generate a second set of power flows; in response to receiving the grid configurations and respective first set of power flows and second set of power flows, generating investment cost and operation cost data;
computing and exchanging a differential cost for each grid configuration; and
using the investment cost and operation cost data and the differential cost to generate a grid plan.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to processing and transmitting data are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a component to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-18 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 2, 4, recite device; . The dependent 2-18 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2-18 recites machine learning model, device, processor, computer-readable medium which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2-18 recites servers and communication, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2-18 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1, 19, and 20. Therefore claims 2-18 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Reasons Claims are Patentably Distinguishable from the Prior Art
Examiner analyzed claim 1 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
Vyakaranam, et al., US 2022/0140601 A1: Teaches automated grid-planning analysis that converts production-cost-model results into chronological AC power-flow cases. It uses load, wind, and solar forecasts, generator and topology data, hourly/sub-hourly time series, and optimization subject to capacity, voltage, line-flow, stability, and environmental constraints. It also addresses voltage violations, reactive-power/shunt planning, topology updates, and processor/non-transitory-medium implementation.
Forbes, US 2014/0039699 A1: Teaches a networked electric-grid management system for registering, monitoring, communicating with, and controlling active grid elements across generation, transmission, distribution, storage, and load systems. It emphasizes coordinators, EMS communications, telemetry, equipment/attachment data, power-flow information, voltage/current/stability metrics, load curtailment, supply management, and grid-related settlement/value information.
Low, et al., US 2015/0340863 A1: Teaches distributed optimal-power-flow control for radial distribution networks. It uses node processors that exchange power injection, voltage, branch current, and branch power-flow information with upstream and downstream nodes, including a transmission-fed substation/root node. Its optimization can minimize generation cost and power loss while meeting electrical and operational constraints.
Jooshaki, et al., An Enhanced MILP Model for Multistage Reliability-Constrained Distribution Network Expansion Planning: Teaches multistage distribution-network expansion planning using mixed-integer linear programming. It selects feeder, substation, and transformer investment actions using binary variables, applies power-flow, injection, voltage, and reliability constraints, and minimizes total investment, operational, and reliability-related costs over a planning horizon. IEEE Transactions On Power Systems, Vol.37, No.1, January2022, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9491987
Jereminov, et al., US 2018/0158152 A1: Teaches methods and software for calculating optimal power flow in transmission and distribution networks using equivalent-circuit formulations. Its principal relevance is providing integrated T&D OPF analysis directed toward obtaining globally optimized power-flow solutions.
However, Vyakaranam, Forbes, Low, Jooshaki, and Jereminov, individually or in combination, do not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as a whole as recited in independent claim 1. Specifically, a computed differential cost for each candidate configuration relative to a current grid configuration; an exchange of calculated differential-cost data between the two specific evaluation components; and the use of that exchanged differential cost, together with investment and operation costs, to generate the particular claimed grid plan. Thus, claim is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claims 19 and 20 are distinguishable over the prior art for similar reasons as cited for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-18 are distinguishable because they depend on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye et al., U.S. Pub. 2025/0260236, (discussing distributed energy resources (DERs) integrated into distribution grids (e.g., roof-top photovoltaics (PVs), energy storage system, electric vehicles (EVs), and so on)).
Wong et al., W.O. Pub. 2015/032002, (discussing the grid operating system both manages the grid and facilitates the integration of distributed energy resources and distributed information resources in an electric power system).
Zhou et al., Incremental Cost Analysis Model Of Distribution Network Based On Economic Dispatch Of Distributed New-Energy Storage System, Clean Energy, Volume 8, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 89–103, https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkae007 (discussing the economic dispatch and incremental-cost analysis for grid-connected distributed renewable generation and energy storage. It evaluates changes in substation investment cost, energy-exchange cost, maintenance cost, line-loss cost, and wind/solar curtailment cost, using time-indexed tie-line power and optimized dispatch outputs as inputs to a distribution-grid cost-benefit analysis).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights