18Notice 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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/21/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the non-operational” in line 4 should be “the non-operational violation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims of instant application
Claims of copending application 18750545
1.
A power grid system comprising:
a plurality of transmission zones, each of the plurality of transmission zones including:
one or more
zonal measurement devices configured to measure at least one zonal operational parameter for an assigned transmission zone of the plurality of transmission zones;
a zonal controller associated with the assigned transmission zone and in communication with the one or more zonal measurement devices, the zonal controller configured to:
receive zonal operational data for the assigned transmission zone from the one or more zonal measurement devices;
determine a zonal orchestration index based on the zonal operational data;
determine an adaptive control action for a control device in the assigned transmission zone or another one of the plurality of transmission zones based on the zonal orchestration index; and
communicate a command to the control device based on the adaptive control action.
1. (Currently Amended)
A power grid system comprising: an advanced distribution management system (ADMS);
a distribution
zonal measurement device configured to measure at least one zonal distribution operational parameter for an assigned distribution zone of a plurality of distribution zones in a power grid, each of the plurality of distribution zones having an associated distribution zonal measurement device; and
a distribution zonal controller associated with the assigned distribution zone and in communication with the distribution zonal measurement device and the advanced distribution management system, each of the plurality of distribution zones having an associated zonal controller, the distribution zonal controller configured to: receive distribution zonal operational data for the assigned distribution zone from the distribution zonal measurement device;
determine a distribution zonal orchestration index for the assigned distribution zone based on the distribution zonal operational data, the distribution zonal orchestration index defining a measure of operation of the assigned distribution zone relative to baseline operational data for the assigned distribution zone; communicate the distribution zonal orchestration index to the ADMS; determine an adaptive control action for one or more distribution control devices in the assigned distribution zone based on the distribution zonal orchestration index for the assigned distribution zone and a distribution zonal orchestration index for another one of the plurality of distribution zones; and
communicate a command to the one or more distribution control devices based on the adaptive control action.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18750545, in view of US20090281673 to Taft.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of both claim sets are extremely similar, the difference in the independent claim 1 of the instant application and the independent claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that the independent claim 1 of the instant application recites less limitation than the independent claim 1 of copending application 18750545, for example, the independent claim 1of the instant application does not recite “communicate the distribution zonal orchestration index to the ADMS; determine an adaptive control action for one or more distribution control devices in the assigned distribution zone based on the distribution zonal orchestration index for the assigned distribution zone and a distribution zonal orchestration index for another one of the plurality of distribution zones” that are recited in the independent claim 1 of copending application 18750545. Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). Another difference is that claim 1 of the instant application further recites “a plurality of transmission zones, each of the plurality of transmission zones, assigned transmission zone of the plurality of transmission zone”. Taft in an analogous art discloses a plurality of transmission zones, each of the plurality of transmission zones, assigned transmission zone of the plurality of transmission zone (Taft, see [0011]-[0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 2 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 2 of the instant application further recites “the command is configured to cause the control device to perform the adaptive control action and wherein the adaptive control action includes voltage control”. Taft further discloses the command is configured to cause the control device to perform the adaptive control action and wherein the adaptive control action includes voltage control (Taft, see [0012] and [0087] “reducing the power supplied to the feeder circuit”, it is inherent that voltage control is involved if the substation is to reduce the power supplied to the feeder circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 4 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 4 of the instant application further recites wherein the control device is a device associated with a substation within the assigned transmission zone. Taft further discloses wherein the control device is a device associated with a substation within the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0012] and [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 5 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 5 of the instant application further recites wherein the control device is configured to adjust an operational parameter of primary equipment in the substation using associated secondary equipment. Taft further discloses wherein the control device is configured to adjust an operational parameter of primary equipment in the substation using associated secondary equipment (Taft, see [0012], [0063] and [0087], the substation would adjust an operational parameter of circuit breakers (i.e. primary equipment in the substation) using protective relays (i.e. secondary equipment) to reduce power supplied to power feeder).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 6 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 6 of the instant application further recites the assigned transmission. Taft further discloses the assigned transmission (Taft, see [0012] and [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 7 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 7 of the instant application further recites communicate to a central control system of the power grid system including the plurality of transmission zone. Taft further recites communicate to a central control system of the power grid system including the plurality of transmission zone (Taft, see [0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 9 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 9 of the instant application further recites indicative of an operation violation in the assigned transmission zone. Taft further recites indicative of an operation violation in the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0071] and [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 17 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 17 of the instant application further recites wherein the operational violation is indicative of whether voltage is within a respective threshold limit. Taft further discloses wherein the operational violation is indicative of whether voltage is within a respective threshold limit (Taft, see [0054] and [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 18 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 18 of the instant application further recites wherein the operational violation includes voltage value outside threshold limit. Taft further discloses wherein the operational violation includes voltage value outside threshold limit (Taft, see [0054] and [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 19 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 19 of the instant application further recites the non-operational violation relates to hardware related issue, wherein the zonal controller is further configured to isolate a node of the assigned transmission zone upon identification of the non-operational violation. Taft further discloses the non-operational violation relates to hardware related issue (Taft, see [0088]), wherein the zonal controller is further configured to isolate a node of the assigned transmission zone upon identification of the non-operational violation (Taft, see [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 20 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 20 of the instant application further recites wherein the one or more zonal measurement devices include a sensor associated with the assigned transmission zone. Taft further discloses wherein the one or more zonal measurement devices include a sensor associated with the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0011]-[0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18750545, in view of US20090281673 to Taft, in view of US20110106321 to Cherian et al. (hereinafter “Cherian”).
The difference between claim 3 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 3 of the instant application further recites the command is configured to cause the control device to perform the adaptive control action in real time. Cherian in an analogous art discloses the command is configured to cause the control device to perform the adaptive control action in real time (Cherian, see [0073] and [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Cherian of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to efficiently control power production and distribution by dynamically controlling and distribution of power over a distributed power grid (Cherian, see [0018]-[0019]).
Claims 8 and 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18750545, in view of US20090281673 to Taft, in view of US20240353807 to Wong et al. (hereinafter “Wong”).
The difference between claim 8 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 8 of the instant application further recites the zonal controller is further configured to communicate for the assigned transmission zone to another one of the plurality of transmission zones and to receive an external zonal orchestration index from at least one of the plurality of transmission zones. Taft further discloses zonal controller is further configured to communicate the zonal orchestration indication for the assigned transmission zone, another one of the plurality of transmission zone, zonal orchestration indication being received (Taft, see [0011]-[0012] and [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
Wong in an analogous art discloses zonal controller communicate data for the assigned zone to another one of the plurality of zones, and to receive data from at least one of the zones (Wong, see [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
The difference between claim 10 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 10 of the instant application further recites wherein the zonal controller is further configured to receive a zonal adaptive policy from a federated grid management system in communication with the zonal controller, the zonal adaptive policy including standard rules for using zonal control resources to mitigate at least one of an operational violation or non-operational violation in the assigned transmission zone. Taft further discloses a zone adaptive policy (Taft, see [0087] “predetermined threshold”), assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
Wong in an analogous art discloses the zonal controller is further configured to receive a zonal adaptive policy from a federated grid management system in communication with the zonal controller, the zonal adaptive policy including standard rules for using zonal control resources to mitigate at least one of an operational violation or non-operational violation (Taft, see Fig. 1 and [0030]-[0031], it is noted that hubs can be interpreted as zonal controllers, central controller layer can be interpreted federated grid management system and control strategy can be interpreted as zonal adaptive policy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
The difference between claim 11 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 11 of the instant application further recites wherein the zonal controller is further configured to identify the operational violation or the non-operational violation based on the zonal operational data and the zonal adaptive policy. Taft further discloses the zonal controller is further configured to identify the operational violation based on the zonal operational data and the zonal adaptive policy (Taft, see [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 12 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 12 of the instant application further recites wherein the zonal controller is configured to identify the operational violation or the non-operational violation by comparing zonal operational data to one or more thresholds and/or reference data defined in the zonal adaptive policy. Taft further discloses the zonal controller is further configured to identify the operational violation by comparing zonal operational data to threshold data (Taft, see [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
Wong further discloses reference data defined in the zonal adaptive policy (Wong, see Fig. 1 and [0030]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
The difference between claim 13 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 13 of the instant application further recites wherein the zonal controller communicates the command to the control device upon identification of the operational violation in the assigned transmission zone. Taft further discloses the zonal controller communicates the command to the control device upon identification of the operational violation in the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0012] and [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
The difference between claim 14 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 14 of the instant application further recites wherein the zonal controller is further configured to communicate an alarm or an electronic message to a user interface associated with the assigned transmission zone upon identification of the non-operational violation in the assigned transmission zone. Taft further discloses the zonal controller is further configured to communicate data to a device associated with the assigned transmission zone upon identification of the non-operational violation in the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0010]-[0012], [0055] and [0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Taft of into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers (Taft, see [0008]).
Wong further discloses communicate an electronic message to a user interface (Wong, see [0093]-[0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
The difference between claim 15 of the instant application and claim 1 of copending application 18750545 is that claim 15 of the instant application further recites wherein the command is configured to execute a pre-scheduled control based on the zonal orchestration index; and wherein the pre-scheduled control is defined in the zonal adaptive policy. Wong further discloses wherein the command is configured to execute a pre-scheduled control based on the zonal orchestration index; and wherein the pre-scheduled control is defined in the zonal adaptive policy (Wong, see [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the system of copending application 18750545. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
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.
The term “critical violation” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “critical violation” 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. For purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “critical violation” as “violation whose severity level is more than a predetermined threshold”.
The term “non-critical violation” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “non-critical violation” 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. For purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “non-critical violation” as “violation whose severity level is less than a predetermined threshold”.
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, 4-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving determine a zonal orchestration index based on the zonal operational data; determine an adaptive control action for a control device in the assigned transmission zone or another one of the plurality of transmission zones based on the zonal orchestration index, the zonal orchestration index is a measure of performance of the assigned transmission zone to a baseline performance or a reference index, the zonal orchestration index is indicative of at least one of an operational violation or a non-operational violation in the assigned transmission zone, identify the operational violation or the non-operational violation based on the zonal operational data and the zonal adaptive policy, identify the operational violation or the non-operational violation by comparing zonal operational data to one or more thresholds and/or reference data defined in the zonal adaptive policy, the zonal orchestration index is a numeric value representing a bit stream encoding the operational violation or the non-operational violation; and wherein bits in the bit stream are sequenced with critical violations positioned on a left-hand side of a bit stream and non-critical violations are positioned on a right-hand side of the bit stream based on severity, the operational violation is indicative of whether one or more of voltage, power, load, reactive power, power factor, congestion, stability, frequency, inertia, or grid strength is within a respective threshold limit or a reference range, the operational violation includes one or more of a voltage and/or frequency value outside threshold limits, an active/reactive power outside threshold limits, a transmission line limit exceeding dynamic line ratings, a generator overload, a transformer overload, or a low power factor (claims, 1, 6, 9, 11, and 16-18 and 20), these limitations as described in [0061] and [0069]-[0080] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of one or more zonal measurement devices configured to measure at least one zonal operational parameter for an assigned transmission zone of the plurality of transmission zones; receive zonal operational data for the assigned transmission zone from the one or more zonal measurement devices; communicate a command to the control device based on the adaptive control action, communicate the zonal orchestration index to a central control system of the power grid system including the plurality of transmission zones, communicate the zonal orchestration index for the assigned transmission zone to another one of the plurality of transmission zones and to receive an external zonal orchestration index from at least one of the plurality of transmission zones, receive a zonal adaptive policy from a federated grid management system in communication with the zonal controller, the zonal adaptive policy including standard rules for using zonal control resources to mitigate at least one of an operational violation or non-operational violation in the assigned transmission zone, communicates the command to the control device upon identification of the operational violation in the assigned transmission zone, communicate an alarm or an electronic message to a user interface associated with the assigned transmission zone upon identification of the non-operational violation in the assigned transmission zone, wherein the one or more zonal measurement devices include at least one of a sensor or an intelligent electronic device (IED) associated with the assigned transmission zone (claims 1, 7-8, 10, 13-14 and 20) represent mere data gathering/transmission which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The zonal controller associated with the assigned transmission zone/the zonal controller (claims 1, 7-8 and 10-14) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “the control device is a device associated with a substation within the assigned transmission zone or another one of the plurality of transmission zones, the control device is configured to adjust an operational parameter of primary equipment in the substation using associated secondary equipment” (claims 4-5) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/transmission is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The zonal controller associated with the assigned transmission zone/the zonal controller are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090281673 to Taft, in view of translation of CN114977185 to Dong et al. (hereinafter “Dong”).
As for claim 1, Taft substantially discloses a power grid system (Taft, see [0008]) comprising:
a plurality of transmission zones, each of the plurality of transmission zones (Taft, see [0011]-[0012] for different section of the grid) including:
one or more zonal measurement devices configured to measure at least one zonal operational parameter for an assigned transmission zone of the plurality of transmission zones (Taft, see [0011]-[0012] for sensing devices at substations);
a zonal controller associated with the assigned transmission zone and in communication with the one or more zonal measurement devices, the zonal controller (Taft, see [0011]-[0012] for “substation may use the sensor to sense data for a section of the power grid, and may use the processor and storage device analyze the sensed data in order to determine the state of the section of the power grid (such as determining whether there is a fault in the section of the power grid) and/or may automatically correct the determined fault”, the processor can be interpreted as the zonal controller) configured to:
receive zonal operational data for the assigned transmission zone from the one or more zonal measurement devices (Taft, see [0012]);
determine a zonal orchestration indication based on the zonal operational data (Taft, see [0012] “determine the state of the section of the power grid);
determine an adaptive control action for a control device in the assigned transmission zone or another one of the plurality of transmission zones based on the zonal orchestration indication (Taft, see [0012] and [0087] for reducing the power supplied to the feeder circuit); and
communicate a command to the control device based on the adaptive control action (Taft, see [0012] and [0087]).
Taft does not explicitly disclose a zonal index. However, Dong in an analogous art discloses a zonal index (Dong, see [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Dong into the system of Taft. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate critical section detection and saving operation time by using zonal index (Dong, see [0004]).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the command is configured to cause the control device to perform the adaptive control action and wherein the adaptive control action includes voltage control (Taft, see [0012] and [0087] “reducing the power supplied to the feeder circuit”, it is inherent that voltage control is involved if the substation is to reduce the power supplied to the feeder circuit).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Taft further discloses wherein the control device is a device associated with a substation within the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0012] and [0087]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Taft further discloses wherein the control device is configured to adjust an operational parameter of primary equipment in the substation using associated secondary equipment (Taft, see [0012], [0063] and [0087], the substation would adjust an operational parameter of circuit breakers (i.e. primary equipment in the substation) using protective relays (i.e. secondary equipment) to reduce power supplied to power feeder).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the zonal orchestration indication is a measure of performance of the assigned transmission zone to a baseline performance (Taft, see [0012] and [0087] “the analysis of the sense parameter may comprise a comparison of the sensed parameter with a predetermined threshold and/or may comprise a trend analysis”). Dong further discloses zonal index (Dong, see [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Dong into the system of Taft. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate critical section detection and saving operation time by using zonal index (Dong, see [0004]).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the zonal controller is further configured to communicate the zonal orchestration indication to a central control system of the power grid system including the plurality of transmission zone (Taft, see [0139]). Dong further discloses zonal index (Dong, see [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Dong into the system of Taft. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate critical section detection and saving operation time by using zonal index (Dong, see [0004]).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the zonal orchestration indication is indicative of an operation violation in the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0071] and [0087]).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Taft further discloses wherein the operational violation is indicative of whether voltage is within a respective threshold limit (Taft, see [0054] and [0087]).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, Taft further discloses wherein the operational violation includes voltage value outside threshold limit (Taft, see [0054] and [0087]).
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the non-operational violation relates to hardware related issue (Taft, see [0088]), wherein the zonal controller is further configured to isolate a node of the assigned transmission zone upon identification of the non-operational violation (Taft, see [0088]).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Taft further discloses wherein the one or more zonal measurement devices include a sensor associated with the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0011]-[0012]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taft, in view of Dong, further in view of US20110106321 to Cherian et al. (hereinafter “Cherian”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, the combination of Taft and Dong does not explicitly disclose the command is configured to cause the control device to perform the adaptive control action in real time. However, Cherian in an analogous art discloses the command is configured to cause the control device to perform the adaptive control action in real time (Cherian, see [0073] and [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Cherian into the combination of Taft and Dong. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to efficiently control power production and distribution by dynamically controlling and distribution of power over a distributed power grid (Cherian, see [0018]-[0019]).
Claim(s) 8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taft, in view of Dong, further in view of US20240353807 to Wong et al. (hereinafter “Wong”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Taft further discloses zonal controller is further configured to communicate the zonal orchestration indication for the assigned transmission zone, another one of the plurality of transmission zone, zonal orchestration indication being received (Taft, see [0011]-[0012] and [0087]). Dong further discloses (Dong, see [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Dong into the system of Taft. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate critical section detection and saving operation time by using zonal index (Dong, see [0004]).
The combination of Taft and Dong does not explicitly disclose zonal controller communicate data for the assigned zone to another one of the plurality of zones, and to receive data from at least one of the zones. However, Wong in an analogous art discloses zonal controller communicate data for the assigned zone to another one of the plurality of zones, and to receive data from at least one of the zones (Wong, see [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the combination of Taft and Dong. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Taft further discloses a zone adaptive policy (Taft, see [0087] “predetermined threshold”), assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0012]). The combination of Taft and Dong does not explicitly disclose the zonal controller is further configured to receive a zonal adaptive policy from a federated grid management system in communication with the zonal controller, the zonal adaptive policy including standard rules for using zonal control resources to mitigate at least one of an operational violation or non-operational violation. However, Wong in an analogous art discloses the zonal controller is further configured to receive a zonal adaptive policy from a federated grid management system in communication with the zonal controller, the zonal adaptive policy including standard rules for using zonal control resources to mitigate at least one of an operational violation or non-operational violation (Taft, see Fig. 1 and [0030]-[0031], it is noted that hubs can be interpreted as zonal controllers, central controller layer can be interpreted federated grid management system and control strategy can be interpreted as zonal adaptive policy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the combination of Taft and Dong. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the zonal controller is further configured to identify the operational violation based on the zonal operational data and the zonal adaptive policy (Taft, see [0087]).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the zonal controller is further configured to identify the operational violation by comparing zonal operational data to threshold data (Taft, see [0087]). Wong further discloses reference data defined in the zonal adaptive policy (Wong, see Fig. 1 and [0030]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the combination of Taft and Dong. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the zonal controller communicates the command to the control device upon identification of the operational violation in the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0012] and [0087]).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Taft further discloses the zonal controller is further configured to communicate data to a device associated with the assigned transmission zone upon identification of the non-operational violation in the assigned transmission zone (Taft, see [0010]-[0012], [0055] and [0139]). Wong further discloses communicate an electronic message to a user interface (Wong, see [0093]-[0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the combination of Taft and Dong. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, Wong further discloses wherein the command is configured to execute a pre-scheduled control based on the zonal orchestration index; and wherein the pre-scheduled control is defined in the zonal adaptive policy (Wong, see [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wong into the combination of Taft and Dong. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide accurate, up-to-date assessment of local grid operation (Wong, see [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 16, Taft discloses a smart grid for improving the management of a power utility grid is provided. The smart grid as presently disclosed includes using sensors in various portions of the power utility grid, using communications and computing technology to upgrade an electric power grid so that it can operate more efficiently and reliably and support additional services to consumers. The smart grid may include distributed intelligence in the power utility grid (separate from the control center intelligence) including devices that generate data in different sections of the grid, analyze the generated data, and automatically modify the operation of a section of the power grid. Further, the intelligent devices in the power utility grid may cooperate together to analyze and/or control the state of the power grid. Finally, the distributed intelligence may further include distributed storage. Dong discloses a method for identifying power grid partitions and power grid key sections based on AP clustering algorithm, determines the power grid topology diagram according to the power system structure, and obtains the electrical distance between each node; then comprehensively considers the transmission permittivity of each branch and the branch In addition, the invention also proposes a criticality index according to the power flow situation and safety margin of the transmission section, which can better reflect the power grid. Finally, according to this index, the criticality index of each transmission section is sorted, so as to mine the key sections that restrict the transmission efficiency of the power grid transmission channel; the invention is based on the AP clustering algorithm to achieve The power grid partitioning considers the criticality of the section, and gives an automatic identification method for the critical section of the power grid, which has the advantages of accurate detection of the critical section and saving running time. Wong discloses a system and method for a central controller layer to monitor conditions and control operations of an electric grid. The central controller layer communicates with an intermediate controller layer that includes hubs to monitor operations of grid edge devices connected to different regions of the electric grid. The central controller layer obtains, from each hub, sensor data corresponding to measurements performed by the grid edge devices. The central controller layer determines, based on the sensor data and expected grid-wide operations, control strategies with expected electrical operating conditions for the respective region, and provides a respective control strategy to each hub. In response to receiving the respective control strategy for the hub, each hub generates operational parameters for at least one grid edge device that cause a grid edge device to adjust its operation based on the expected amount of power flow for the hub, the combination of the cited prior arts does not describe:
the zonal orchestration index is a numeric value representing a bit stream encoding the operational violation or the non-operational violation; and wherein bits in the bit stream are sequenced with violation whose severity level is more than a predetermined threshold being positioned on a left-hand side of a bit stream and violation whose severity level is more than a predetermined threshold being positioned on a right-hand side of the bit stream based on severity
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US8126685 discloses a system for real-time optimization of power resources on an electrical system is disclosed. The system includes a data acquisition component, an analytics server, a control element and a client terminal. The data acquisition component is communicatively connected to a sensor configured to acquire real-time data output from the electrical system. The analytics server is communicatively connected to the data acquisition component and is comprised of a virtual system modeling engine, an analytics engine and a power flow optimization engine. The virtual system modeling engine is configured to generate predicted data output for the electrical system utilizing a virtual system model of the electrical system. The control element is interfaced with an electrical system component and communicatively connected to the analytics server. The client terminal is communicatively connected to the analytics server.
US20240429716 discloses a system is configured to train a context model, receive signals from the network of devices, determine, based on the context model, context data associate with a current condition of the network of devices, determine a formation plan based on the context data, configure one or more scout applications based on the formation plan and device information stored in the network device database, and cause the one or more scout applications to be executed by the one or more devices in the network of devices.
US12332762 discloses a system for automated detection of anomalous performance of application infrastructure components includes memory hardware and processor hardware communicatively coupled together. The processor hardware is configured to train the at least one machine learning model using measured historical performance metrics of a first component of the application infrastructure components. The processor hardware is configured to use the at least one machine learning model to generate key performance indicators for the first component, based on a reporting window time period associated with measured performance metrics. The processor hardware is configured to, in response to the key performance indicators indicating a performance anomaly condition for the first component, automatically perform a self-healing operation associated with the key performance indicators. The self-healing operation includes automatically modifying operation of the first component, including at least one of restarting the first component, and starting a new instance of the first component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights