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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 33, line 14 shows Tsin, page 52, line 19 also shows Tsin, however, page 56, line 4 shows Tsim, page 58, line 8 shows Tsim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: optimizer is configured to receive the ACE signals, apply the ACE signals to a salp swarm algorithm and update the gain parameters of the 1+PIDN controller in claim 1, the optimizer is configured to receive the cost function J.sub.ITAE and minimize the cost function J.sub.ITAE to update the gain parameters in claim 6, a first subtractor configured to subtract the combined frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal in claim 9, interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window in claim 9, a second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the first busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window in claim 9, a third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.1 signal in claim 9, a first subtractor configured to subtract the combined frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal in claim 10, interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window in claim 10, a second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the second busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window in claim 10, a third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.2 signal in claim 10, a first subtractor configured to subtract the combined frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal in claim 11, interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window in claim 11, a second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the third busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window in claim 11, a third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.3 signal in claim 11, a first subtractor configured to subtract the frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal in claim 12, interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window in claim 12, a second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the fourth busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window in claim 12, a third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.3 signal in claim 12, optimizer is configured to receive the ACE signals, apply the ACE signals to a salp swarm algorithm and update the gain parameters of the 1+PIDN controller in claim 18, optimizer is configured to fetch the cost function J.sub.ITAE, apply the cost function J.sub.ITAE to the salp swarm algorithm, and execute the salp swarm algorithm to minimize the cost function J.sub.ITAE in claim 19.
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, such as Figs. 5A-5B and paragraphs [0077-0086, 0094] from USPGPUB of pending application, 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 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 recites “each power system is configured to generate area control signals (ACE)”. Claim 13 recites “generating, by each power system, area control signals (ACE)”. However, claim 18 recites “receive area control error (ACE) signals from electrical tie-lines”. It is unclear whether the claimed “ACE” signals refer to “area control signals” or “area control error signals”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “Tsin” from the cost function formula. However, the specification recites two different supports which are Tsin and Tsim. It is unclear what the corrected term is to be used for the cost function formula. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “the third power system comprises: …. a frequency meter located in the second power system”. It is unclear how a frequency meter from the third power system located in the second power system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “the fourth power system comprises: …. a frequency meter located in the second power system”. It is unclear how a frequency meter from the fourth power system located in the second power system. Claim 12 also recites “a third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.3 signal”. It is unclear how the third subtractor from the fourth power system capable to generate ACE.sub.3 signal for the third power system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “Tsim” from the cost function formula. However, the specification recites two different supports which are Tsin and Tsim. It is unclear what the corrected term is to be used for the cost function formula. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-12, 18-20 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 limitation “optimizer is configured to receive the ACE signals, apply the ACE signals to a salp swarm algorithm and update the gain parameters of the 1+PIDN controller” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receiving function, applying function, and updating function. The use of the terms “receive”, “apply”, “update” are not adequate structure for performing the receiving function, the applying function, and the updating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “optimizer is configured to receive the cost function J.sub.ITAE and minimize the cost function J.sub.ITAE to update the gain parameters” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receiving function, the minimizing function, and the updating function. The use of the terms “receive”, “minimize”, “update” are not adequate structure for performing the receiving function, the minimizing function, and the updating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “first subtractor configured to subtract the combined frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window for an exchange of power from the first busbar to the MPC” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the generating function. The use of the term “generate” is not adequate structure for performing the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the first busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receiving function and the transmitting function. The use of the terms “receive” and “transmit” are not adequate structure for performing the receiving function and the transmitting function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.1 signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “first subtractor configured to subtract the combined frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window for an exchange of power from the second busbar to the MPC” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the generating function. The use of the term “generate” is not adequate structure for performing the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the second busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receiving function and the transmitting function. The use of the terms “receive” and “transmit” are not adequate structure for performing the receiving function and the transmitting function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.2 signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “first subtractor configured to subtract the combined frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window for an exchange of power from the third busbar to the MPC” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the generating function. The use of the term “generate” is not adequate structure for performing the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the third busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receiving function and the transmitting function. The use of the terms “receive” and “transmit” are not adequate structure for performing the receiving function and the transmitting function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.3 signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “first subtractor configured to subtract the frequency measurement from a reference frequency and generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “interchange scheduler configured to generate a time window for an exchange of power from the fourth busbar to the MPC” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the generating function. The use of the term “generate” is not adequate structure for performing the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “second subtractor configured to receive the power disturbances from the fourth busbar and transmit the power disturbances during the scheduled time window” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receiving function and the transmitting function. The use of the terms “receive” and “transmit” are not adequate structure for performing the receiving function and the transmitting function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “third subtractor configured to subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal from the scheduled power disturbances and generate the ACE.sub.3 signal” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the subtracting function and the generating function. The use of the terms “subtract” and “generate” are not adequate structure for performing the subtracting function and the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “optimizer is configured to receive the ACE signals, apply the ACE signals to a salp swarm algorithm and update the gain parameters of the 1+PIDN controller” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the receiving function, applying function, and updating function. The use of the terms “receive”, “apply”, “update” are not adequate structure for performing the receiving function, the applying function, and the updating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
Claim limitation “optimizer is configured to fetch the cost function J.sub.ITAE, apply the cost function J.sub.ITAE to the salp swarm algorithm, and execute the salp swarm algorithm” 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the fetching function, applying function, and executing function. The use of the terms “fetch”, “apply”, “execute” are not adequate structure for performing the fetching function, applying function, and executing function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to receive the ACE signals, apply the ACE signals, and update the gain parameters. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function regarding to receive the cost function, minimize the cost function, update the gain parameters. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function regarding to subtract the combined frequency measurement, generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate a time window, receive the power disturbances, transmit the power disturbances, subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate the ACE.sub.1 signal. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function regarding to subtract the combined frequency measurement, generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate a time window, receive the power disturbances, transmit the power disturbances, subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate the ACE.sub.2 signal. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function regarding to subtract the combined frequency measurement, generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate a time window, receive the power disturbances, transmit the power disturbances, subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate the ACE.sub.3 signal. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function regarding to subtract the combined frequency measurement, generate a power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate a time window, receive the power disturbances, transmit the power disturbances, subtract the power to frequency ratio bias signal, generate the ACE.sub.3 signal. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function regarding to apply the ACE signals to a salp swarm algorithm and update the gain parameters of the 1+PIDN controller. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function regarding to fetch the cost function, apply the cost function, execute the salp swarm algorithm, minimize the cost function. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph set forth in this Office action.
Claim 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Surya Prakash and S. K. Sinha, “Four Area Load Frequency Control of Interconnected Hydro-thermal Power System by Intelligent PID Control Technique.”, disclose load-frequency control of a four-area interconnected hydro-thermal power system using conventional PI/PID and artificial-intelligence-based controllers. Areas 1 and 2 employ thermal reheat power plants, while areas 3 and 4 employ hydro power plants. The reference considers area control error (ACE), frequency deviations, and tie-line power deviations as part of the interconnected-area load-frequency-control problem. The controller configurations are evaluated through simulation to determine their ability to restore frequency and regulate interchange between interconnected control areas. Overall. Prakash demonstrates that four-area interconnected LFC, hydro/thermal generation, tie-line power regulation, ACE, and PID-family control were known features of multi-area frequency-control systems.
Amita Singh and Veena Sharma, “Salp swarm algorithm-based model predictive controller for frequency regulation of solar integrated power system,” Neural Computing and Applications 31 (2019) 8859–8870, published online Aug. 23, 2019, disclose a load-frequency-control technique for an interconnected, unequal two-area power system incorporating a solar thermal power plant and a conventional thermal plant. The reference employs a model predictive controller (MPC) for frequency regulation and uses a salp swarm algorithm (SSA) to optimize MPC parameters. The system accounts for practical nonlinearities and constraints including governor dead band, generation-rate constraint, and transport delay. The performance of the SSA-optimized MPC is compared with SSA-optimized conventional controllers, including PID, FOPID, and cascaded PIDN-FOPID controllers. Singh expressly establishes the use of SSA optimization, MPC, PID/PIDN-family controllers, renewable generation, and interconnected-area frequency regulation in the same technical field before the claimed priority date. Overall, Singh particularly demonstrates applying a salp swarm algorithm, and use of the resulting control arrangement to mitigate frequency disturbances in an interconnected power system. It also demonstrates that SSA was known as an optimization technique for controller parameters in load-frequency regulation and that PIDN-containing cascaded controllers were considered in the same study.
Muhammad Majid Gulzar, Daud Sibtain, and Muhammad Khalid, “Cascaded Fractional Model Predictive Controller for Load Frequency Control in Multiarea Hybrid Renewable Energy System with Uncertainties,” published Feb. 23, 2023, Gulzar addresses load-frequency control of a multiarea hybrid renewable-energy power system subject to system uncertainties. The NPL proposes a cascaded fractional model predictive control architecture incorporating a fractional-order PID controller. The disclosed control system operates in a multiarea renewable-generation environment and uses area-control-error information in performing load-frequency regulation. Gulzar therefore demonstrates the combination of MPC, cascaded PID-family control, ACE-based load-frequency control, parameter optimization, interconnected/multiarea operation, and renewable energy resources. Overall, Gulzar teaches an MPC cascaded with a PID-family controller in an interconnected renewable-energy power system.
Emre Çelik, Nihat Öztürk, Yogendra Arya, and Cemil Ocak, “(1 + PD)-PID cascade controller design for performance betterment of load frequency control in diverse electric power systems,” published online June 12, 2021, disclose a (1+PD)-PID cascaded controller specifically designed for load-frequency control. The output of a 1+PD controller is connected to the input of a PID controller, and frequency and tie-line power deviations are supplied as feedback signals. The gains of the cascaded controller are concurrently tuned using a dragonfly search algorithm (DSA). The controller is evaluated first in a two-area thermal system and subsequently in single- area and multi-area, multi-source power systems, including configurations having an HVDC link. The reference therefore demonstrates the use of a “1+” PID-family cascaded controller, metaheuristic gain optimization, tie-line/frequency feedback, and multi-area LFC.
The prior art of record do not teach or suggest, individually or in combination, a model predictive controller (MPC) operatively connected to receive area control error (ACE) signals from electrical tie-lines which interconnect the multi-region power systems, wherein the MPC includes a memory storing program instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the program instructions to generate a control signal u(k); a one plus proportional integral derivative (1+PIDN) controller operatively connected to the MPC, wherein the 1+PIDN controller includes a set of amplifiers having gain parameters; and an optimizer operatively connected to the MPC, wherein the optimizer is configured to receive the ACE signals, apply the ACE signals to a salp swarm algorithm and update the gain parameters of the 1+PIDN controller, wherein the 1+PIDN controller is configured to receive the control signal u(k) and the updated gain parameters and generate an output signal configured to mitigate power disturbances due to frequency imbalances on the electrical tie-lines which interconnect the multi-region power systems.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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 at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights