Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 13 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.
The term “close proximity” in claim 5 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close proximity” 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.
Therefore, claim 5 and 13 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arya et al (US PUB. 20150149396) in view of Patel (US PUB. 20120089264) in further view of Pau et al (NPL, Efficient Branch-Current-Based Distribution System State Estimation Including Synchronized Measurements, IEEE 2013).
Regarding claim 1, Arya teaches A computer-implemented method for determining properties of an electrical network, the method comprising, by a processor (0014):
creating, in memory, a representation of the electrical network as a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes including a source node and multiple downstream nodes (0019 “object of the present invention is utilize SCADA data at the main substation (i.e. root node), smart meter data at consumer nodes, and network connectivity information to detect and localize NTL for a given grid. Briefly, to detect theft, estimated power supplied at the root node is compared with the actual power supplied (as measured by the SCADA system). In case of a significant mismatch, theft is detected and the mismatch amount is treated as NTL.”);
obtaining a measurement of voltage at a node of the multiple downstream nodes (0019 “object of the present invention is utilize SCADA data at the main substation (i.e. root node), smart meter data at consumer nodes, and network connectivity information to detect and localize NTL for a given grid. Briefly, to detect theft, estimated power supplied at the root node is compared with the actual power supplied (as measured by the SCADA system). In case of a significant mismatch, theft is detected and the mismatch amount is treated as NTL.”, 0021 “extra power flows though the feeder and/or feeders, which can cause unexpected voltage dips near the theft premises, which may be identified by comparing the estimated voltage and smart meter measured voltage at the nodes”).
The cited prior art do not teach and using the created representation and the obtained measurement of voltage, iteratively performing, until convergence, a power flow analysis of the electrical network to determine the properties of the electrical network, wherein iteratively performing the power flow analysis includes, for each iteration: incrementally updating a value of a variable representing voltage of the source node based on the obtained measurement of voltage and (ii) performing the power flow analysis using the variable with the updated value.
Patel teaches and using the created representation and the obtained measurement of voltage, iteratively performing, until convergence, a power flow analysis of the electrical network to determine the properties of the electrical network, wherein iteratively performing the power flow analysis includes (0098 “real power and voltage magnitude assignments or settings at PV-nodes and transformer turns ratios, open/close status of all circuit breaker, the reactive capability characteristic or curve for each machine, maximum and minimum tap positions limits of tap changing transformers, operating limits of all other network components, and the impedance or admittance of all lines are supplied. DGSPL or PDL model is solved by an iterative process until convergence. During this solution the quantities which can vary are the real and reactive power at the reference/slack node, the reactive power set points for each PV-node generator, the transformation ratios of tap-changing transformers, and voltages on all PQ-nodes nodes, all being held within the specified ranges. When the iterative process converges to a solution, indications of reactive power generation at PV-nodes and transformer turns-ratios or tap-settings are provided. Based on the known reactive power capability characteristics of each PV-node generator, the determined reactive power values are used to adjust the excitation current to each generator to establish the reactive power set points”) for each iteration:
(i) incrementally updating a value of a variable representing voltage [of the source node] based on the obtained measurement of voltage (0098 “real power and voltage magnitude assignments or settings at PV-nodes and transformer turns ratios, open/close status of all circuit breaker, the reactive capability characteristic or curve for each machine, maximum and minimum tap positions limits of tap changing transformers, operating limits of all other network components, and the impedance or admittance of all lines are supplied. DGSPL or PDL model is solved by an iterative process until convergence. During this solution the quantities which can vary are the real and reactive power at the reference/slack node, the reactive power set points for each PV-node generator, the transformation ratios of tap-changing transformers, and voltages on all PQ-nodes nodes, all being held within the specified ranges. When the iterative process converges to a solution, indications of reactive power generation at PV-nodes and transformer turns-ratios or tap-settings are provided. Based on the known reactive power capability characteristics of each PV-node generator, the determined reactive power values are used to adjust the excitation current to each generator to establish the reactive power set points”)
and (ii) performing the power flow analysis using the variable with the updated value (0098 “real power and voltage magnitude assignments or settings at PV-nodes and transformer turns ratios, open/close status of all circuit breaker, the reactive capability characteristic or curve for each machine, maximum and minimum tap positions limits of tap changing transformers, operating limits of all other network components, and the impedance or admittance of all lines are supplied. DGSPL or PDL model is solved by an iterative process until convergence. During this solution the quantities which can vary are the real and reactive power at the reference/slack node, the reactive power set points for each PV-node generator, the transformation ratios of tap-changing transformers, and voltages on all PQ-nodes nodes, all being held within the specified ranges. When the iterative process converges to a solution, indications of reactive power generation at PV-nodes and transformer turns-ratios or tap-settings are provided. Based on the known reactive power capability characteristics of each PV-node generator, the determined reactive power values are used to adjust the excitation current to each generator to establish the reactive power set points”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Arya with the teachings of Patel since Patel teaches a means for “increased stability and efficiency of the DGSPL calculation method” (abstract).
The cited prior art do not teach incrementally updating a value of a variable representing voltage of the source node.
Pau teaches incrementally updating a value of a variable representing voltage of the source node based on the obtained measurement of voltage ((conclusion page 2427 “an efficient SE algorithm aimed at estimating the status of a distribution system is presented. The estimator is developed to use both traditional, nonsynchronized measurements, and synchronized ones, obtained from PMUs. Furthermore, the state model is extended to include the slack bus voltage in the estimation process, so that the knowledge of the whole voltage profile can be significantly improved. The estimator can be expressed in polar or rectangular coordinates. Furthermore, the possibility to treat both radial and weakly meshed topology, also in presence of DG, is shown. Test results obtained on three distribution networks, two balanced, and one unbalanced, are presented and discussed to high light the efficiency of the proposed procedure. The impact of PMUs usage on the estimation accuracy is investigated. Results prove that the state expressed in rectangular form is computationally more efficient, unless a large number of current measurements exists”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Arya and Patel with the teachings of Pau since Pau teaches a means for “an efficient SE algorithm aimed at estimating the status of a distribution system” (2427).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Patel teaches wherein incrementally updating the value of the variable representing voltage of the source node comprises, in a given iteration: calculating a given value of the variable; calculating an error value by determining a difference between the calculated given value of the variable and the obtained measurement of voltage at the node of the multiple downstream nodes; and updating the value of the variable using the error calculated (0098 “GSPL or PDL model is solved by an iterative process until convergence. During this solution the quantities which can vary are the real and reactive power at the reference/slack node, the reactive power set points for each PV-node generator, the transformation ratios of tap-changing transformers, and voltages on all PQ-nodes nodes, all being held within the specified ranges. When the iterative process converges to a solution, indications of reactive power generation at PV-nodes and transformer turns-ratios or tap-settings are provided” 0169 “Adjust voltage magnitudes at all nodes having current status of PV-node types equal to the respective scheduled/specified/set voltage magnitude values using equation (13). [0170] 57. Increment iteration count ITRF=ITRF+1 and r=(ITRF+ITRE)/2, and perform DFMX=0.0 [0171] 58. Calculate |.DELTA.f.sub.p.sup.(r+1)| for all the nodes using (10), or calculate vector [Df]=absolute value of each component of the difference [f]-[f0] and determine maximum value component of [Df] as DFMX., and perform [f0]=[f] [0172] 59. If both DFMX and DEMX are less than or equal to specified convergence tolerance, go to step-66, otherwise follow the next step”)
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 2.
Patel teaches further comprising: responsive to the error value being approximately equal to zero, determining convergence is reached (0098 “GSPL or PDL model is solved by an iterative process until convergence. During this solution the quantities which can vary are the real and reactive power at the reference/slack node, the reactive power set points for each PV-node generator, the transformation ratios of tap-changing transformers, and voltages on all PQ-nodes nodes, all being held within the specified ranges. When the iterative process converges to a solution, indications of reactive power generation at PV-nodes and transformer turns-ratios or tap-settings are provided” 0169 “Adjust voltage magnitudes at all nodes having current status of PV-node types equal to the respective scheduled/specified/set voltage magnitude values using equation (13). [0170] 57. Increment iteration count ITRF=ITRF+1 and r=(ITRF+ITRE)/2, and perform DFMX=0.0 [0171] 58. Calculate |.DELTA.f.sub.p.sup.(r+1)| for all the nodes using (10), or calculate vector [Df]=absolute value of each component of the difference [f]-[f0] and determine maximum value component of [Df] as DFMX., and perform [f0]=[f] [0172] 59. If both DFMX and DEMX are less than or equal to specified convergence tolerance, go to step-66, otherwise follow the next step”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Patel teaches wherein incrementally updating the value of the variable representing voltage of the source node based on the obtained measurement of voltage comprises, in a given iteration: determining an error signal based on the obtained measurement of voltage and a voltage at the node of the multiple downstream nodes determined by an iteration prior to the given iteration; processing the error signal with one or more functions to determine a given value of the variable; and setting the updated value of the variable to be the given value (0098 “GSPL or PDL model is solved by an iterative process until convergence. During this solution the quantities which can vary are the real and reactive power at the reference/slack node, the reactive power set points for each PV-node generator, the transformation ratios of tap-changing transformers, and voltages on all PQ-nodes nodes, all being held within the specified ranges. When the iterative process converges to a solution, indications of reactive power generation at PV-nodes and transformer turns-ratios or tap-settings are provided” 0169 “Adjust voltage magnitudes at all nodes having current status of PV-node types equal to the respective scheduled/specified/set voltage magnitude values using equation (13). [0170] 57. Increment iteration count ITRF=ITRF+1 and r=(ITRF+ITRE)/2, and perform DFMX=0.0 [0171] 58. Calculate |.DELTA.f.sub.p.sup.(r+1)| for all the nodes using (10), or calculate vector [Df]=absolute value of each component of the difference [f]-[f0] and determine maximum value component of [Df] as DFMX., and perform [f0]=[f] [0172] 59. If both DFMX and DEMX are less than or equal to specified convergence tolerance, go to step-66, otherwise follow the next step”).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Arya teaches wherein the source node is located in relative close proximity within the electrical network to the node of the multiple downstream nodes from which the measurement of voltage is obtained (0018).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Arya teaches wherein obtaining the measurement of voltage at the node of the multiple downstream nodes comprises: receiving the measurement from a voltage meter at the node of the multiple downstream nodes (0018).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Patel teaches wherein incrementally updating the value of the variable representing voltage of the source node based on the obtained measurement of voltage comprises: modifying the value of the voltage variable for the source node by adjusting a gain parameter of one or more functions (0016, 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Patel teaches further comprising: based on results of the performing the power flow analysis, controlling operation of an element in the electrical network (0014 0016).
Claims 9-20 are rejected using similar reasoning as the rejection of claims 1-8 due to reciting similar limitations but directed towards a system and computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMEEM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/TAMEEM D SIDDIQUEE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights