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 1-20 are presented for examination.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is
clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/24 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
5. Claims 4-10 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 4 recites the limitations “the generator variables” in line 3; “the slack variables” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-10 rejected because they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 4.
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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raghunathan (Raghunathan), US publication no. 2024/0118677 A1.
As per claim 1, Raghunathan discloses controller for controlling an operation of an electric grid including a plurality of generators [para 117-118], the controller comprising:
a memory configured to store executable instructions [para 17]; and a processor configured to execute the executable instructions [para 17] to cause the controller to:
collect a feedback signal indicative of a current state of the operation of the electric grid and a total demand of power from the plurality of generators of the electric grid [figure 13; para 118-120];
formulate an original quadratic program (QP) for optimizing an objective function subject to equality constraints and inequality constraints on one or a combination of state and control variables of the operation of the electric grid based on the total demand and the current state of the operation of the electric grid [figure 13; para 120];
lift the equality constraints and the inequality constraints into a lifted space having a dimension higher than a dimension of an original space of the original QP by a lifting operation introducing an additional non-negative variable such that a subspace defined by the equality constraints in the lifted space intersects a subspace defined by the inequality constraints in the lifted space at least at a point of origin of the lifted space [figure 13; step 1305; para 121];
transform the objective function of the original QP into a quadratic objective function involving variables of the original QP and the additional non-negative variable, wherein the quadratic objective function subject to the lifted equality and inequality constraints forms a homogeneous QP in the lifted space such that first-order optimality conditions of the homogeneous QP correspond to first-order optimality conditions of the original QP lifted in the higher space by the lifting operation [figure 13; step 1307; para 122];
solve the homogeneous QP to produce a solution in the lifted space [figure 13; step 1309; para 123] using a decomposition that replaces variables corresponding to individual generators with dual variables corresponding to the total demand of power, the additional nonnegative variable, and a dual variable corresponding to the additional nonnegative variable [figure 13; para 118, 124-125];
control the electric grid according to an infeasibility protocol when a value of the additional non-negative variable in the solution in the lifted space equals zero [figure 13; para 124]; and otherwise
project the solution in the lifted space into the original space using a projection operation reversing the lifting operation to produce a solution of the original QP [para 125]; and
control the electric grid using a control command determined based on the solution of the original QP [figure 13; para 126].
Raghunathan teaches:
[0120] FIG. 13 shows a block diagram of an overall method 1300 for controlling an operation of a machine according to a task, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. At block 1301, the method 1300 includes collecting a feedback signal indicative of a current state of the operation of the machine. At block 1303, the method
1300 includes formulating an original quadratic program (QP) for optimizing an objective function subject to subject to constraints. The constraints may include equality constraints and inequality constraints on one or a combination of state and control variables of the machine based on the task and the current state of the operation of the machine.
[0121] At block 1305, the method 1300 includes lifting the equality constraints and the inequality constraints into a lifted space having a dimension higher than a dimension of
an original space of the original QP by a lifting operation. The lifting operation introduces an additional non-negative variable such that a subspace defined by the equality constraints in the lifted space intersects a subspace defined by the inequality constraints in the lifted space at least at a point of origin of the lifted space.
[0122] At block 1307, the method 1300 includes transforming the objective function of the original QP into a quadratic objective function involving variables of the original
QP and the additional non-negative variable. The quadratic objective function subject to the lifted equality and inequality constraints forms a homogeneous QP in the lifted
space such that first-order optimality conditions of the homogeneous QP correspond to first-order optimality conditions of the original QP lifted in the higher space by the
lifting operation.
[0123] At block 1309, the method 1300 includes solving the homogeneous QP to produce a solution in the lifted space.
[0124] At block 1311, the method 1300 includes determining if a value of the additional non-negative variable in the solution in the lifted space equals to zero. If the value of
the additional non-negative variable in the solution in the lifted space equals to zero, then, at block 1313, the method 1300 includes controlling the machine 103 according to an infeasibility protocol.
As per claim 2, Raghunathan discloses the processor includes a central processor operatively connected to a plurality of processors of the generators to produce the control command using parallel computations of the plurality of processors enabled by the decomposition [para 124-125; 129, 134].
As per claim 3, Raghunathan discloses the HQP is solved iteratively, wherein for each iteration, the processor is further configured to: execute a Newton Method with the decomposition using at least one of an Interior Point Method (IPM) or a Semi-smooth Newton Method (SNM) to find a direction for updating variables of the HQP; and update the variables along the direction [para 86, 98].
As per claim 11, Raghunathan discloses the lifting operation includes multiplication of values in the original space by the additional non-negative variable [para 56].
As per claim 12, Raghunathan discloses the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the controller to: lift the equality constraints in the lifted space by scaling the equality constraints with the additional non-negative variable, and wherein the solution in the lifted space is projected to the original space by dividing the solution in the lifted space with the additional nonnegative variable [para 56, 63, 125].
As per claim 13, Raghunathan discloses the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the controller to: transform the original QP such that the solution of the homogeneous QP in the lifted space is negative for positive values of the additional non-negative variable [figure 1; para 120-123].
As per claim 14, Raghunathan discloses the homogeneous QP includes a quadratic term of the original QP, a linear term of the original QP scaled by the additional non-negative variable, a quadratic term of the additional non-negative
variable scaled by a scalar selected to be greater than two times the negative of the lower bound of the original QP and a negative linear term of the additional non-negative variable [figures 3, 4; para 73, 77-80].
As per claim 15, Raghunathan discloses the first-order optimality conditions of the homogeneous QP correspond to the first-order optimality conditions of the original QP lifted in the higher space by the lifting operation, and wherein the projection operation transforms a solution of the first-order conditions of the homogeneous QP whenever the additional non-negative variable is positive, to satisfy the first-order
conditions of the original QP [figures 3, 4; para 69, 77, 85].
As per claim 16, Raghunathan discloses the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the controller to control, based on the control command, at least one generator of the plurality of generators to change a current amount of produced power to satisfy the total demand of power [para 118, 119].
As per claim 17, Raghunathan discloses the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the controller to control, based on the control command, an engine speed of the at least one generator of the plurality of generator to change the current amount of produced power to satisfy the total demand of power [para 105, 118-119].
As per claim 18, Raghunathan discloses the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the controller to: determine, based on the infeasibility protocol, an amount of power to satisfy the total demand of power; control the electric grid to obtain the determined amount of power produced from one or more power sources [figure 3; para 117-119].
As to claim 19, claim 1 basically are the corresponding elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claim 19. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 20, directed to a storage medium storing a program to perform the method of operating steps executed by the system as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-10 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.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of records do not teach: in claim 4, solve, based on a determination that the first residual value is less than a tolerance value, a linearized Karush-Kuhn-
Tucker (KKT) matrix of the first optimality conditions to compute a first Newton-type search direction; compute a first step size in the first Newton-type search direction, wherein the first step size satisfy positivity; constraints on the dual variables and the slack variables for each of the inequality constraints; iteratively update the first value of the (i) the generator variables, (ii) the dual variables; (iii) the slack variables, (iv) the barrier parameter value, (v) or a combination thereof until a determination of a second residual value based on the first Newton-type search direction and the computed first step size, wherein the determined second residual value is greater than the tolerance
value; and determine, based on the second residual value, the solution of the homogeneous QP.
10. 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."
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Quirynen et al., US publication no. 2021/0271214 A1, discloses a control system for controlling an operation of a machine subject to constraints including equality and inequality constraints on state and control variables of the system iteratively solves an optimal control structured optimization problem (OCP), such that each iteration outputs primal variables and dual variables with respect to the equality constraints and dual variables and slack variables with respect to the inequality constraints and using a decomposition of the linearized KKT system to compute a Newton-type search direction into a sequence of two subsystems in the interior point optimization algorithm to solve constrained OCP-QPs.
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 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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
Prosecution Insights