DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 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 1-5 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.
Specifically, claims 1-5 recite the term “small” and the term “large”. These terms, as utilized in the claims, are considered relative terms which render the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 1 line 11, claim 4 line 4, and claim 4 line 18, recites the term “improved”. This term, as utilized in the claim, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 line 10, the term “the reservoir with the smallest water surface area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 lines 11-14, the term “the water level calculated by S1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 line 15, the term “repeating S301-S303” creates confusion because it is not clear what is included or not included in said range.
Claim 4 line 6, the term “taking 2-3” creates confusion because it is not clear what is included or not included in said range.
Claim 4 line 6, the term “the upper and lower water level”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 line 15, the term “the second and third reservoirs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Li et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201220 disclose optimization of operations of cascade hydropower stations. The prior art of record taken either alone or in combination fails to disclose a method comprising the following limitation/feature:
(Claim 1) - "S4, based on the initial water level trajectory obtained, carrying out a discrete differential dynamic programming calculation of each reservoir from upstream to downstream to maximize a cascade total power generation, and obtaining an improved water level trajectory of each cascade reservoir; S5, taking the improved water level trajectory of each cascade reservoir as an initial trajectory, and carrying out an iterative optimization according to S4 until the water level trajectory of each cascade reservoir is unchanged or a total power generation value during a cascade calculation period is unchanged",
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
It is for these reasons that the applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201220 – relates total phosphorus export of cascade hydropower station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 pm.
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 on 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 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.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights