DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, the “means” of Claim 23. Corresponding structure disclosed at least in the form of a computer and corresponding computer program per Paragraph [0016] of the instant Specification.
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 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based upon consideration of the claim as a whole. Claim 24-26 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant's “computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device;” “computer-readable data carrier;” and “data carrier signal” encompasses both statutory and non-statutory media including but not limited to carrier waves. Applicant is required to amend the claims to make it clear that the computer-readable medium includes only non-transitory media. See 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (February 23, 2010).
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for evaluating a system of equations in performing energy flow analysis of an energy system [See Paragraph [0038] of the instant Specification].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying energy system is realized through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited data processing device or system, computer program product, data carrier, and data carrier signal amount to the recitation of general-purpose computer elements for implementing the algorithm using a computer and do not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pazderin et al., Solution of Energy Flow Problem Using State Estimation Technique, IEEE, 2009 [hereinafter “Pazderin”].
Regarding Claim 14, Pazderin discloses a method for evaluating measurement data of an energy system, wherein the energy system comprises components which are interconnected by energy flows [Page 1738, second column – “The figure 1.a shows tested radial electric network with nodal EE measurements. All the nodal injections are observable. There are no EE measurements on the network branches.”See system of equations (10).], wherein
measurement values are available for a portion of the energy flows [Page 1738, second column – “All the nodal injections are observable.”Page 1738, second column – “The system (10) in the left part contains unmeasured EE flows and measured nodal EE flows in the right part accordingly. The input energy flows have a negative sign (-), and the output flows have a positive sign (+). The measured EE flows are underlined.”],
values are calculated for at least some energy flows for which no measurement values are available [Page 1738, second column – “There are no EE measurements on the network branches.”Page 1738, second column – “The system (10) in the left part contains unmeasured EE flows and measured nodal EE flows in the right part accordingly. The input energy flows have a negative sign (-), and the output flows have a positive sign (+). The measured EE flows are underlined.”], whereby
different subsystems of the energy system are considered successively, and in each subsystem a value is calculated for one or more energy flows for which no measurement values are available [See the successive consideration and solving for each of W12, W23, and W34 in system of equations (10).Page 1738, second column – “Having a measured nodal EE flows, it is possible to calculate all the flows in network, using the expression (1а), without taking into account energy losses in network branches.”], wherein
virtual measurement data are calculated in the subsystems by setting up an equation system [See the solving for each of W12, W23, and W34 in system of equations (10), which is “virtual” because there are no corresponding measurements taken for these values.] based on a topology [See Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 15, Pazderin discloses that the topology of the energy system is stored as a directed graph before the calculation [See Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 16, Pazderin discloses that measurement values [Page 1738, second column – “The system (10) in the left part contains unmeasured EE flows and measured nodal EE flows in the right part accordingly. The input energy flows have a negative sign (-), and the output flows have a positive sign (+). The measured EE flows are underlined.”] and the calculated values for energy flows are stored for the topology [Page 1738, second column – “Having a measured nodal EE flows, it is possible to calculate all the flows in network, using the expression (1а), without taking into account energy losses in network branches.”].
Regarding Claim 17, Pazderin discloses that the equation system is set up in each case for the subsystems with variables in the form of values to be calculated for energy flows of the subsystem for which no measurement values are available [See the solving for each of W12, W23, and W34 in system of equations (10).].
Regarding Claim 19, Pazderin discloses that subsystems are determined [The different branches and nodes of Fig. 1] for which solvable equation systems are set up [See the solving for each of W12, W23, and W34 in system of equations (10).].
Regarding Claim 20, Pazderin discloses that at least one incorrect measurement value is identified for a subsystem with an overdetermined equation system [See equation 3 and Page 1737, second column – “K>M. The observability matrix is rectangular, and the linear equations system (5) is overdetermined. As EE meters have errors, there is no linear flows vector which can ensure identities for all equations of the redefined system (5). The solution of this system is possible on the basis of the objective function minimum (3).”
The boxes of Fig. 2 depict corresponding measurement errors.].
Regarding Claim 21, Pazderin discloses that the at least one incorrect measurement value is identified in that the at least one incorrect measurement value is identified as a component of a plurality of overdetermined equation systems [See equation 3 and Page 1737, second column – “K>M. The observability matrix is rectangular, and the linear equations system (5) is overdetermined. As EE meters have errors, there is no linear flows vector which can ensure identities for all equations of the redefined system (5). The solution of this system is possible on the basis of the objective function minimum (3).”
The corresponding systems of equations used in the evaluation depicted in Fig. 2. Boxes of Fig. 2 depict corresponding measurement errors.].
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pazderin et al., Solution of Energy Flow Problem Using State Estimation Technique, IEEE, 2009 [hereinafter “Pazderin”] and Wang et al. (US 20230177235 A1)[hereinafter “Wang”].
Regarding Claim 18, Pazderin discloses that the equation system comprises at least one model equation of a component of the respective subsystem [See the solving for each of W12, W23, and W34 in system of equations (10).], but fails to disclose that the model includes at least one parameter describing an efficiency of the component.
However, Wang discloses evaluating energy flows in a system through an evaluation of system and component efficiencies [See Figs. 1 and 2 and Paragraphs [0024]-[0031]. Paragraph [0031] – “In the embodiment of the disclosure, the objective function of the network flows in the multi-energy system are subject to the power balance constraint, the energy storage period constraint, the energy storage capacity constraint, the energy storage charging and discharging constraint, the generator power constraint, and the energy storage charge quantity constraint.”]. It would have been obvious to evaluate component efficiencies as part of the system modelling in order to better characterize energy flows in the system.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pazderin et al., Solution of Energy Flow Problem Using State Estimation Technique, IEEE, 2009 [hereinafter “Pazderin”] and Miller, Technique for solving underdetermined systems of linear equations, solitaryroad.com, 10.10.2010 (accessed via the Wayback Machine internet archive by the Examiner on 9/23/2026).
Regarding Claim 22, Pazderin discloses the scenario of an underdetermined equation system for at least one energy flow for which no measurement value is available [Page 1737, second column – “K<M. The observability matrix is rectangular and the system is underdetermined, having an infinite number of solutions. For the EE flows in the network to be defined, additional measurements are necessary;”], but fails to disclose that a notional measurement value is incorporated into the equation system for a subsystem with an underdetermined equation system for at least one energy flow for which no measurement value is available.
However, Miller discloses a technique for solving underdetermined systems of equations [Title] through incorporation of a notional value [Page 2 – “Computing the particular solution. We can compute the coordinates of some point on plane K by arbitrarily picking values for a couple of the unknowns and solving for the other unknown.”]. It would have been obvious to take such an approach in order to resolve the impossibility of solving the underdetermined equation system.
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pazderin et al., Solution of Energy Flow Problem Using State Estimation Technique, IEEE, 2009 [hereinafter “Pazderin”] and Bickford et al. (US 20140068283 A1)[hereinafter “Bickford”].
Regarding Claim 23, Pazderin fails to disclose a device or system for data processing, comprising means to carry out the method as claimed in claim 14.
However, Bickford discloses the use of such structure for implementing power analysis methods [See Paragraphs [0014], [0018], and [0019]]. It would have been obvious to employ such structure because doing so would have been an effective manner of implementing the analysis using a computer.
Regarding Claim 24, Pazderin fails to disclose a computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method, as claimed in claim 14.
However, Bickford discloses the use of such structure for implementing power analysis methods [See Paragraphs [0014], [0018], and [0019]]. It would have been obvious to employ such structure because doing so would have been an effective manner of implementing the analysis using a computer.
Regarding Claim 25, Pazderin fails to disclose a computer-readable data carrier on which the computer program as claimed in claim 24 is stored.
However, Bickford discloses the use of such structure for implementing power analysis methods [See Paragraphs [0014], [0018], and [0019]]. It would have been obvious to employ such structure because doing so would have been an effective manner of implementing the analysis using a computer.
Regarding Claim 26, Pazderin fails to disclose a data carrier signal which contains the computer program as claimed in claim 24.
However, Bickford discloses the use of such structure for implementing power analysis methods [See Paragraphs [0014], [0018], and [0019]]. It would have been obvious to employ such structure because doing so would have been an effective manner of implementing the analysis using a computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Khan et al., Parameter and Topology Estimation for Electrical Power Distribution System, IEEE, 2019
Plesnyaev et al., Data Acquisition System Faults Detection, IEEE, 2003
US 20140236506 A1 – Method For Detecting Power Theft In A Power Distribution System
US 20140214218 A1 – ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INCLUDING METERING FUNCTION AND METHOD OF EVALUATING ENERGY METERING
US 20200287388 A1 – METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE TOPOLOGY OF AN ELECTRIC POWER NETWORK USING METERING DATA
US 20050160128 A1 – Methods And Systems For Power Systems Analysis
US 20160238669 A1 – Power System State Estimation Device And Power System State Estimation Method For Same
US 20240136851 A1 – ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights