DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/24 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, independent claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Yes, the claim 1 is directed to an incomplete dimensionality augmentation-based
optimization method. which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. The limitations “a power flow independent variable is divided into a control variable u and a disturbance variable x;”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim further recites “the control variable u serves as an optimization variable in an optimization problem; the disturbance variable is an uncontrolled independent variable; the control variable u is not subjected to dimensionality
augmentation to keep a power flow constraint as a linearized expression of the control variable u; and the disturbance variable x is subjected to dimensionality augmentation to
adapt to the nonlinear characteristic of the power flow through a nonlinear function in a dimensionality augmentation function.” are amounts to extra-solution activity of describe data, making judgment and adjusting data until the desire expectation of outcome is not satisfied (MPEP 2106.05 (g)): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a data-driven power system" amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities. The system, memory, processor, are generic computer components used as a tool. They provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-4:
They depend on claim 1, therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of claim 1. The claims 2-4 recited other new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are mental processes based abstract idea. Please note that a narrower abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case since the limitations of the claims 2-4 are more narrowing the abstract idea of the claim 1. Therefore, the claims 2-4 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. Furthermore, the claims 2-4 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. The claims 2-4 are not patent eligible.
6. Examiner's note: To qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the particular machine to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Liu), CN 112865109 A1.
As per claim 1, Liu discloses an incomplete dimensionality augmentation-based optimization method for a data-driven power system [figure 1; English translation, page 4, lines 18-19], wherein in the optimization method, a power flow independent variable [history operation data] is divided into a control variable u and a disturbance variable x [English translation, page 4, lines 19-22]; the control variable u serves as an optimization variable in an optimization problem; the disturbance variable is an uncontrolled independent variable; the control variable u is not subjected to dimensionality augmentation to keep a power flow constraint as a linearized expression of the control variable u [English translation, page 4, line 36-page 5, line 8]; and the disturbance variable x is subjected to dimensionality augmentation to adapt to the nonlinear characteristic of the power flow through a nonlinear function in a dimensionality augmentation function [English translation, page 4, lines 27-29; page 4, line 36-page 5, line 8].
Liu teaches:
Referring to FIG. 1, a data driving type power system power flow calculation method, collecting the electric power system history operation data obtained by the measuring instrument, the history operation data in a part of the parameter data as the input variable of the flow calculation; taking the parameter data related to the input variable in the rest data as the output variable of the power flow calculation; the input variable and the output variable of the tide are mapped into linear relation after using Koopman operator theory rising dimension, then fitting to obtain the linear transfer matrix between the input variable and the output variable according to the collected historical operation data; obtaining the output value of any input variable corresponding to the power flow by the fitted linear transfer matrix; finishing the flow calculation.
The core of the Koopman operator theory is: The nonlinear system in the low-dimensional space can be transformed into linear system after increasing dimensionality. The power flow equation in the power system is a nonlinear equation set; after the dimension of the input and output variables in the power flow calculation is increased, the linear relationship between the input and output variables can be obtained. in the actual calculation, the original low-dimensional space is increased by tens to hundreds of dimensions to calculate.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2-4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of records do not teach: in claim 2, establishing an incomplete dimensionality augmentation-based power system data-driven power flow algorithm by the following formula, performing parametric regression by a least square method, and determining a power flow mapping matrix M to implement high-accuracy power flow mapping on a state variable y by the control variable u and the disturbance variable x; performing least square estimation based on the linear structure of the following formula to determine a mapping relationship matrix M of the power flow.
11. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wu et al., US publication no. 2018/0041036, discloses a reactive power optimization method for integrated transmission and distribution networks related to a field of operation and control technology of an electric power system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-9. 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).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1Liu is cited by applicant.
Prosecution Insights