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 phrase(s) “and preferably wherein the second set of measurement values is derived from the second data set over a corresponding time window shifted by the time shift value” , “and preferably using the respective synchronization offset to correct measurement data received from the respective source or transmitting the offset to the respective source for local time correction at the source”, “the selection preferably made in dependence on proximity of the available sources to the source(s) for which correction is to be performed (e.g. the first source)”, “and preferably further comprising performing demand response control based on the corrected measurement data at the control system”, “a second source, preferably comprising a second demand response asset connected to the electrical power supply network” and “means, optionally in the form of one or more processing devices with associated memory” suggest or make features or steps optional. That is, limitations that do not require that feature or step do not limit the scope of a claim under their broadest reasonable claim interpretation (MPEP 2103).
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 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) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2-24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
"the same reference source” should be "a same reference source" [Claim 19, line 2];
"a method" should be "the method" [Claims 2-24, all line 1].
Appropriate correction is required. Further, in an effort to practice compact prosecution, each of these limitations has been interpreted similarly as in the provided recommendation for each limitation, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitation “a system having means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, the claim and specification suggest that the one or more processing devices with associated memory are optional and is silent with regard to any other structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1, 25 recite "the respective time shift value" in lines 14, 22. This portion of the limitation is unclear because, prior to this portion of the limitation, the claims also recite “a respective one of a plurality of time shift values” initially. Therefore, it is not clear if these are the same or different. Claims 2-24 are also rejected for the same reason due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites "the respective data set" in line 3. This portion of the limitation is unclear because, prior to this portion of the limitation, the claims also recite “first and second data sets” initially. Therefore, it is not clear if these are the same or different. Claim 10 is also rejected for the same reason due to its dependency on claim 9.
Claims 3, 15, 18, 19, 21 recite "the source", “the source(s)” in various lines. This portion of the limitation is unclear because, prior to this portion of the limitation, the claims also recite a first and second source, initially. Therefore, it is not clear if these are the same or different. Claim 10 is also rejected for the same reason due to its dependency on claim 9.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. That is, claim 23 recites a “computer program product or tangible computer readable medium" without limiting the medium to only non-transitory embodiments even as interpreted in light of the specification. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “computer program product or tangible computer readable medium” can be transitory, propagating signals which do not fall within one of the eligible statutory categories.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. That is, the claims recite a “computer program” but fail to mention any specific hardware even when interpreted in light of the specification. Therefore, claim 23 is directed to software per se.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a method of determining a synchronization offset for measurement data relating to an electrical power supply network; the method comprising: receiving a first data set of measurement data from a first source and a second data set of measurement data from a second source, each data set comprising: a plurality of measurements of an electrical parameter of the network measured at the respective source; and time information indicating measurement times of the measurements; determining a plurality of correlation measures, wherein each correlation measure is determined for a respective one of a plurality of time shift values and is indicative of a correlation between: a first set of measurement values derived from the first data set; and a second set of measurement values derived from the second data set, wherein one of the first and second set of measurement values is derived under application of a time shift corresponding to the respective time shift value; selecting one of the time shift values in dependence on the correlation measures; and determining a synchronization offset based on the selected time shift value.
The limitations of determining a plurality of correlation measures, wherein each correlation measure is determined for a respective one of a plurality of time shift values and is indicative of a correlation between: a first set of measurement values derived from the first data set; and a second set of measurement values derived from the second data set, wherein one of the first and second set of measurement values is derived under application of a time shift corresponding to the respective time shift value; selecting one of the time shift values in dependence on the correlation measures; and determining a synchronization offset based on the selected time shift value, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to “determining”, “selecting”, and “determining” in the context of this claim encompass the user judging a plurality of correlation measures, judging a selection one of the time shift values, and judging a synchronization offset. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – receiving a first data set of measurement data from a first source and a second data set of measurement data from a second source, each data set comprising: a plurality of measurements of an electrical parameter of the network measured at the respective source; and time information indicating measurement times of the measurements. The electrical power supply network and sources are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “receiving” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements pertaining to “receiving” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 25 recites a system comprising: a synchronization controller; a first source comprising a demand response asset connected to an electrical power supply network and configured to implement a flexibility service by altering supply of energy to and/or use of energy from the network, the first source configured to generate and transmit to the synchronization controller a first measurement data set; a second source, preferably comprising a second demand response asset connected to the electrical power supply network, configured to generate and transmit to the synchronization controller a second measurement data set, wherein each of the first and second measurement data sets comprise: a plurality of measurements of an electrical parameter of the electrical power supply network measured at the respective source; and time information indicating measurement times of the measurements; wherein the synchronization controller is configured to: receive the first and second data sets; determine a plurality of correlation measures, wherein each correlation measure is determined for a respective one of a plurality of time shift values and is indicative of a correlation between: a first set of measurement values derived from the first data set; and a second set of measurement values derived from the second data set, wherein one of the first and second sets of measurement values are derived under application of a time shift corresponding to the respective time shift value; select one of the time shift values in dependence on the correlation measures; determine a synchronization offset based on the selected time shift value; and use the determined synchronization offset to perform at least one of: correcting time information in measurement data received from the first source and outputting the corrected measurement data; and transmitting the synchronization offset to the first source to enable local correction of time information at the first source.
The limitations of determine a plurality of correlation measures, wherein each correlation measure is determined for a respective one of a plurality of time shift values and is indicative of a correlation between: a first set of measurement values derived from the first data set; and a second set of measurement values derived from the second data set, wherein one of the first and second sets of measurement values are derived under application of a time shift corresponding to the respective time shift value; select one of the time shift values in dependence on the correlation measures; determine a synchronization offset based on the selected time shift value; and use the determined synchronization offset to perform at least one of: correcting time information in measurement data received from the first source, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to “determine”, “select”, “determine” and “correcting” in the context of this claim encompass the user judging a plurality of correlation measures, judging a selection one of the time shift values, judging a synchronization offset and judging corrections to time information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 25 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a system comprising: a synchronization controller; a first source comprising a demand response asset connected to an electrical power supply network and configured to implement a flexibility service by altering supply of energy to and/or use of energy from the network, the first source configured to generate and transmit to the synchronization controller a first measurement data set; a second source, preferably comprising a second demand response asset connected to the electrical power supply network, configured to generate and transmit to the synchronization controller a second measurement data set, wherein each of the first and second measurement data sets comprise: a plurality of measurements of an electrical parameter of the electrical power supply network measured at the respective source; and time information indicating measurement times of the measurements; wherein the synchronization controller is configured to: receive the first and second data sets; and outputting the corrected measurement data; and transmitting the synchronization offset to the first source to enable local correction of time information at the first source. The system, synchronization controller, electrical power supply network, and sources are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “receive”, “generate and transmit” and “outputting” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and some are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements pertaining to ““receive”, “generate and transmit” and “outputting” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 25 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-24 depend on claim 1 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2-3, 11, 15, 18-19 recite additional limitations pertaining to correcting timing information or measurement data, determining and transmitting a synchronization offset, and the first and second source. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a correction to timing information or measurement data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim further recites generic electrical components performing generic electrical functions. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to transmitting do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements pertaining to transmitting represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-3, 11, 15, 18-19 are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites additional limitations pertaining to the first and second sources. These devices and/or components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computing/electrical devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As aforementioned, these devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer/electrical devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites additional limitations pertaining to the electrical parameters. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent a further limitation of the insignificant extra-solution activities recited in the independent claim, which does not preclude it from being insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites additional limitations pertaining to a central synchronization controller. These devices and/or components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As aforementioned, these devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites additional limitations pertaining to measurements, deriving measurements, and modifying measurement time value using the time shift. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of analyzing and judging measurements based on a time shift. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8-10 recites additional limitations pertaining to deriving measurement values. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging measurements over windows based on interpolation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 8-10 are not patent eligible.
Claims 12-14 recite additional limitations pertaining to timing information, using selected time shift value, and selecting the time shift value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging clock accuracy and judging time shift values. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 12-14 are not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites additional limitations pertaining to repeating the determination. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of repeatedly determining the judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites additional limitations pertaining to determining a validity determination and repeating the offset determination. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a validity judgement and repeatedly judgement the offset judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites additional limitations pertaining to associating a respective validity period and recomputing. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging an association of a validity period with each synchronization offset and judging a recomputing of the offset after expiry . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 recites additional limitations pertaining to selecting one of a plurality of available sources, using measurement data, and the selection. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a selection and using measurement data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 recites additional limitations pertaining to transmitting. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 23-24 recite additional limitations pertaining to a computer program, computer program product or tangible computer readable medium and a system having means. These devices and/or components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As aforementioned, these devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-19, 21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bickel (US 2007/0014313).
Regarding claim 1, Bickel discloses:
A method of determining a synchronization offset for measurement data relating to an electrical power supply network; the method comprising: receiving a first data set of measurement data from a first source and a second data set of measurement data from a second source, each data set comprising: a plurality of measurements of an electrical parameter of the network measured at the respective source ([0011] receiving reference signal data from a reference monitoring device. The reference signal data represents frequency variations measured by the reference monitoring device for a predetermined number of cycles. The method further includes receiving second signal data from a second monitoring device that measures frequency variations for a predetermined number of cycles [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254));
and time information indicating measurement times of the measurements ([0046]-[0047] cycle count and time);
determining a plurality of correlation measures, wherein each correlation measure is determined for a respective one of a plurality of time shift values and is indicative of a correlation between: a first set of measurement values derived from the first data set; and a second set of measurement values derived from the second data set, wherein one of the first and second set of measurement values is derived under application of a time shift corresponding to the respective time shift value; selecting one of the time shift values in dependence on the correlation measures; and determining a synchronization offset based on the selected time shift value ([0055]-[0056], [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)) [0061] A correlation coefficient is calculated using the shifted data (260) and if no further shifts are required (262), the data of the second monitoring device is aligned with the data of the reference device at the point at which the maximum correlation coefficient is calculated or at which the correlation coefficient exceeds a threshold value, such as 0.5 (264). It should be noted that when the correlation coefficient r(d) is close to 1.0, the algorithm can exit without conducting any further shifts).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising correcting timing information in measurement data received from one of the first and second sources using the determined synchronization offset ([0060] The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258).).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein the electrical parameter is one of: frequency; and voltage ([0011] a method of aligning data measured by monitoring devices coupled to a power monitoring system includes receiving reference signal data from a reference monitoring device. The reference signal data represents frequency variations measured by the reference monitoring device for a predetermined number of cycles. The method further includes receiving second signal data from a second monitoring device that measures frequency variations for a predetermined number of cycles [0034] The data alignment system 104 aligns data, such as voltage, current, time, events, and the like, from multiple monitoring devices M in a utility system, [0040] a method of aligning data measured by monitoring devices coupled to a power monitoring system includes receiving reference signal data from a reference monitoring device. The reference signal data represents frequency variations measured by the reference monitoring device for a predetermined number of cycles. The method further includes receiving second signal data from a second monitoring device that measures frequency variations for a predetermined number of cycles [0046] From the time the monitoring device 128 is energized, a cycle count is performed of the measured voltage signals. The cycle count is sequentially iterated with each positive voltage zero-crossing (or, alternately, with each negative voltage zero-crossing). As the monitoring device 128 measures both the frequency and amplitude variations of the voltage and current from cycle to cycle, a comparison is performed to their respective nominal values).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
performed at a central synchronization controller in communication with the first and second sources via a data network ([0012] data alignment system).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein the first set of measurement values comprises measurements from the first data set, each associated in the first data set with a respective first measurement time value, and wherein the second set of measurement values are derived from the second data set based on second measurement time values, the second measurement time values obtained by modifying each of the first measurement time values using the time shift value ([0012], [0055]-[0056], [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)) [0061] A correlation coefficient is calculated using the shifted data (260) and if no further shifts are required (262), the data of the second monitoring device is aligned with the data of the reference device at the point at which the maximum correlation coefficient is calculated or at which the correlation coefficient exceeds a threshold value, such as 0.5 (264). It should be noted that when the correlation coefficient r(d) is close to 1.0, the algorithm can exit without conducting any further shifts).
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein the first set of measurement values is derived from the first data set over a predetermined time window and preferably wherein the second set of measurement values is derived from the second data set over a corresponding time window shifted by the time shift value ([0050] The frequency data 360 for the monitoring device 128 is “slid” relative to the frequency data 362 for the monitoring device 130 until the frequency data for each device line up. Thus, the zero-crossing associated with Δt1 of monitoring device 128 is aligned with the zero-crossing associated with Δt1 of monitoring device 130, the zero-crossing associated with Δt2 of monitoring device 128 is aligned with the zero-crossing associated with Δt2 of monitoring device 130, and so on. Cross-correlation algorithms for “sliding” two data sets relative to one another until they are aligned are discussed in further detail below in connection with FIGS. 5A and 5B, [0061]).
As per claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein deriving at least one of the first and second sets of measurement values comprises interpolating from the measurements of the respective data set ([0012], [0060] When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)).
As per claim 10, claim 9 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein the first set of measurement values comprise measurements taken from the first data set, each associated in the first data set with a respective first measurement time value, and wherein deriving the second set of measurement values comprises performing interpolation on measurements of the second data set at time instants corresponding to the first measurement time values modified by the time shift value ([0012], [0060] When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)).
As per claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein the first source is an imprecise measurement source generating measurement data with timing information based on a first clock that is to be corrected, and the second source is a reference source generating measurement data with timing information based on a second clock, and wherein the synchronization offset is used for correcting timing information in measurement data from the first source ([0062] The computer 132 synchronizes the clocks of the second monitoring device and the reference device at the point of alignment (266). The computer 132 reads the cycle count in each monitoring device and the associated monitoring device's on-board clock time. A monitoring device's on-board clock time and cycle count may drift with respect to each other due to the limitations of the on-board clock. Once the data is aligned, the cycle count is considered the absolute reference for a monitoring device. Due to the clock drift, it may be necessary to re-read the time associated with a device's cycle count periodically to reestablish the device's time. The software on the computer 132 will then update the matrix containing the monitoring device time information, [0063], [0065]).
As per claim 12, claim 11 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein the timing information based on the first clock is less accurate than the timing information based on the second clock ([0062], [0063] Another capability of this feature is to allow all on-board monitoring device clocks to be periodically reset to the same value to provide a standard time for the entire power monitoring system. Preferably, the time within the monitoring system software (running on the computer 132) is set according to some absolute time reference. Once the computer time is set, the monitoring system software resets the time on all the monitoring devices accordingly. In this embodiment, the data and time of each monitoring device and the software would be more accurately aligned with the absolute time reference).
As per claim 13, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising using the selected time shift value as the synchronization offset (([0055]-[0056], [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)) [0061] A correlation coefficient is calculated using the shifted data (260) and if no further shifts are required (262), the data of the second monitoring device is aligned with the data of the reference device at the point at which the maximum correlation coefficient is calculated or at which the correlation coefficient exceeds a threshold value, such as 0.5 (264). It should be noted that when the correlation coefficient r(d) is close to 1.0, the algorithm can exit without conducting any further shifts).
As per claim 14, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising selecting the time shift value associated with the correlation measure of the plurality of correlation measures that indicates the strongest correlation ([0049] The buffered data is analyzed by the monitoring system software on the computer 132 to locate the highest correlation in frequency between all the monitoring devices 128, 130. Generally, the highest correlation is located by sliding the buffered frequency data in one monitoring device with respect to another until the frequency variations line up with each other as shown in FIG. 4 [0114] The algorithm 500 calculates a correlation coefficient between a reference monitoring device and every other monitoring device to be interrelated in the hierarchy (504). The algorithm 500 determines the highest correlation coefficient (506) and interrelates the monitoring device associated with the highest correlation coefficient and the reference monitoring device (508).).
As per claim 15, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising providing the synchronization offset to a given one of the sources and using the offset to correct a local time reference at the given source for controlling performance of one or more time-dependent actions at the given source ([0062] The computer 132 synchronizes the clocks of the second monitoring device and the reference device at the point of alignment (266). The computer 132 reads the cycle count in each monitoring device and the associated monitoring device's on-board clock time. A monitoring device's on-board clock time and cycle count may drift with respect to each other due to the limitations of the on-board clock. Once the data is aligned, the cycle count is considered the absolute reference for a monitoring device. Due to the clock drift, it may be necessary to re-read the time associated with a device's cycle count periodically to reestablish the device's time. The software on the computer 132 will then update the matrix containing the monitoring device time information [0065] Another advantage of the data alignment techniques of the present invention is the ability to align data and time on different points of the utility grid. If monitoring devices are located on two different points of the same utility grid, it is possible to align the monitoring devices together. In this embodiment, the monitoring devices at each geographic location are first aligned to each other in accordance with the present invention. The software managing all the systems is then used as the absolute time reference for all systems, giving them all a common point of reference).
As per claim 16, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising repeating the determination of the offset at fixed or variable intervals ([0051] This process is repeated for each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 until all devices' cycle counts are associated with each other [0056] the correlation algorithm is a linear correlation algorithm in which each series is repeated).
As per claim 17, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising determining a validity period for the synchronization offset, and repeating the offset determination upon expiry of the validity period, wherein the validity period is determined in dependence on one of: the current determined offset, changes in the determined offset over time; a rate of change or stability of the determined offset over time; and a type of energy asset of the first or second source ([0056] the correlation algorithm is a linear correlation algorithm in which each series is repeated [0061] the out-of-range indexes can be wrapped back within range according to a circular correlation algorithm or the indexes can be repeated according to a linear correlation algorithm. A correlation coefficient is calculated using the shifted data (260) and if no further shifts are required (262), the data of the second monitoring device is aligned with the data of the reference device at the point at which the maximum correlation coefficient is calculated or at which the correlation coefficient exceeds a threshold value, such as 0.5 (264). It should be noted that when the correlation coefficient r(d) is close to 1.0, the algorithm can exit without conducting any further shifts.).
As per claim 18, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising performing the method of determining a synchronization offset for each of a plurality of sources to determine a respective synchronization offset for each source based on measurement data received from the respective source, and preferably using the respective synchronization offset to correct measurement data received from the respective source or transmitting the offset to the respective source for local time correction at the source (([0055]-[0056], [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)) [0061] A correlation coefficient is calculated using the shifted data (260) and if no further shifts are required (262), the data of the second monitoring device is aligned with the data of the reference device at the point at which the maximum correlation coefficient is calculated or at which the correlation coefficient exceeds a threshold value, such as 0.5 (264). It should be noted that when the correlation coefficient r(d) is close to 1.0, the algorithm can exit without conducting any further shifts).
As per claim 19, claim 18 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
wherein the synchronization offset for each of the sources is determined using measurement data from the same reference source (([0055]-[0056], [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)) [0061] A correlation coefficient is calculated using the shifted data (260) and if no further shifts are required (262), the data of the second monitoring device is aligned with the data of the reference device at the point at which the maximum correlation coefficient is calculated or at which the correlation coefficient exceeds a threshold value, such as 0.5 (264). It should be noted that when the correlation coefficient r(d) is close to 1.0, the algorithm can exit without conducting any further shifts).
As per claim 21, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
comprising selecting one of a plurality of available sources as a reference source (e.g. the second source) and using measurement data from the selected source in the method, the selection preferably made in dependence on proximity of the available sources to the source(s) for which correction is to be performed (e.g. the first source) ([0055] The computer 132 selects a reference monitoring device (206) such as monitoring device 128 and then selects a monitoring device to analyze (208) such as monitoring device 130. Data from the monitoring devices 128, 130 is then cross-correlated according to the present invention (210), and each device's cycle count and time relationships are entered into a matrix (212) [0065] Another advantage of the data alignment techniques of the present invention is the ability to align data and time on different points of the utility grid. If monitoring devices are located on two different points of the same utility grid, it is possible to align the monitoring devices together. In this embodiment, the monitoring devices at each geographic location are first aligned to each other in accordance with the present invention. The software managing all the systems is then used as the absolute time reference for all systems, giving them all a common point of reference. [0117] an auto-learned hierarchy algorithm develops a hierarchy from the bottom-most level based on events local to each level. For example, monitoring devices proximate to an event will ‘see’ an event, such as a load turning on or off, before monitoring devices remote from the event will see it.).
As per claim 23, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
A computer program, computer program product or tangible computer readable medium comprising software code adapted, when executed on a data processing apparatus, to perform a method as set out in claim 1 ([0031]-[0034], [0043], [0046], hardware of claim 24).
As per claim 24, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel further discloses:
A system having means, optionally in the form of one or more processing devices with associated memory, for performing a method as set out in claim 1 ([0031]-[0034], [0043], [0046], hardware of claim 24).
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US 2007/0014313) in view of Paczkowski (US 11,860,688).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel fails to disclose “comprising transmitting the synchronization offset to one of the first and second sources to enable local correction of measurement data at the source”
However, Paczkowski teaches the above limitation ([Abstract] The time offsets may be communicated by the computing devices to remote devices communicatively coupled to the computing device via a first communication network. The remote devices may adjust locally maintained application clocks based on the time offset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paczkowski into the teaching of Bickel because the references similarly disclose inventions pertaining to electrical signals and timing data. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Bickel to further include the transmitting of the offset as in Paczkowski in order to be able to accurately compare and perform other operations between two signals.
Claims 4, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US 2007/0014313) in view of Sun (US 2018/0262009).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel fails to disclose “wherein one or both of the first and second sources comprise(s) a demand response asset configured to implement a flexibility service by altering supply of energy to and/or use of energy from the power supply network
However, Sun teaches the above limitation ([0066] The controller 119 synchronizes the phases and the frequencies of the first and the second power grid 101, 102, by continually adjusting an amount of power supplied from the power source 116, based on continually determining a frequency mismatch and a phase mismatch between the first grid and the second grid, until a first predetermined condition is met (step 130).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun into the teaching of Bickel because the references similarly disclose inventions pertaining to electrical signals and timing data. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Bickel to adjust the amount of power as in Sun because “the converter based synchronizer can control the synchronization parameters for synchronization of the generator, by matching of the amplitude, frequency, and phase of the three-phase output voltages of generator with the same synchronization parameters of the power system with which the generator is synchronized” to eliminate initial transients ([0013], [0016], [0098]).
As per claim 22, claim 1 is incorporated, Bickel fails to disclose “comprising transmitting corrected measurement data having timing information corrected using the synchronization offset to a demand response control system and preferably further comprising performing demand response control based on the corrected measurement data at the control system”
However, Sun teaches the above limitation ([0066] The controller 119 synchronizes the phases and the frequencies of the first and the second power grid 101, 102, by continually adjusting an amount of power supplied from the power source 116, based on continually determining a frequency mismatch and a phase mismatch between the first grid and the second grid, until a first predetermined condition is met (step 130) [0155] Still referring to FIG. 11, the data or other data, among other things, can be transmitted over a communication channel of the network 1136, and/or stored within the storage system 1158 for storage and/or further processing [0082] the phase synchronization is achieved by a frequency offset between the generator and grid frequencies.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun into the teaching of Bickel because the references similarly disclose inventions pertaining to electrical signals and timing data. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Bickel to adjust the amount of power as in Sun because “the converter based synchronizer can control the synchronization parameters for synchronization of the generator, by matching of the amplitude, frequency, and phase of the three-phase output voltages of generator with the same synchronization parameters of the power system with which the generator is synchronized” to eliminate initial transients ([0013], [0016], [0098]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US 2007/0014313) in view of Niu (US 2022/0322266).
As per claim 20, claim 18 is incorporated, Bickel fails to disclose “comprising associating a respective validity period with each synchronization offset and recomputing the offsets after expiry of the respective validity periods”
However, Niu teaches the above limitation ([0023] a time alignment timer is used to guarantee the validity of the timing offset value. If this timer expires, the timing offset value is invalid, and the terminals lose the uplink synchronization, [0029], [0037], [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Niu into the teaching of Bickel because the references similarly disclose inventions pertaining to electrical signals and timing data. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Bickel to including timing as in Niu because “due to the propagation delay, the timing of uplink transmission has to be advanced to align with the timing of the node” (Niu, [0029]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US 2007/0014313) in view of Sun (US 2018/0262009) and further in view of Paczkowski (US 11,860,688).
Regarding claim 25, Bickel discloses:
A system comprising: a synchronization controller; a first source comprising a demand response asset connected to an electrical power supply network, the first source configured to generate and transmit to the synchronization controller a first measurement data set; a second source, preferably comprising a second demand response asset connected to the electrical power supply network, configured to generate and transmit to the synchronization controller a second measurement data set, wherein each of the first and second measurement data sets comprise: a plurality of measurements of an electrical parameter of the electrical power supply network measured at the respective source ([0011] receiving reference signal data from a reference monitoring device. The reference signal data represents frequency variations measured by the reference monitoring device for a predetermined number of cycles. The method further includes receiving second signal data from a second monitoring device that measures frequency variations for a predetermined number of cycles [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254));
and time information indicating measurement times of the measurements ([0046]-[0047] cycle count and time);
wherein the synchronization controller is configured to: receive the first and second data sets; determine a plurality of correlation measures, wherein each correlation measure is determined for a respective one of a plurality of time shift values and is indicative of a correlation between: a first set of measurement values derived from the first data set; and a second set of measurement values derived from the second data set, wherein one of the first and second sets of measurement values are derived under application of a time shift corresponding to the respective time shift value; select one of the time shift values in dependence on the correlation measures; determine a synchronization offset based on the selected time shift value; and use the determined synchronization offset to perform at least one of: correcting time information in measurement data received from the first source and outputting the corrected measurement data ([0055]-[0056], [0060] The computer 132 instructs each monitoring device in the power monitoring system 120 to store data on a cycle-by-cycle basis (250) for a predetermined number of cycles, preferably between about 1,000 and about 10,000 cycles. When a sufficient amount of data has been stored by the monitoring devices, the computer 132 receives the data from the monitoring devices (252) and selects a reference monitoring device (254). Using a convention cross-correlation algorithm such as Equation 1 above, the computer 132 calculates a correlation coefficient r(d) between at least a portion of the data (such as about 400 cycles) of the reference monitoring device and the data of a second monitoring device (256). The calculated correlation coefficient is stored, and the data of the second monitoring device is shifted relative to the reference device by one cycle (258)) [0061] A correlation coefficient is calculated using the shifted data (260) and if no further shifts are required (262), the data of the second monitoring device is aligned with the data of the reference device at the point at which the maximum correlation coefficient is calculated or at which the correlation coefficient exceeds a threshold value, such as 0.5 (264). It should be noted that when the correlation coefficient r(d) is close to 1.0, the algorithm can exit without conducting any further shifts).
Bickel fails to disclose “and configured to implement a flexibility service by altering supply of energy to and/or use of energy from the network; and transmitting the synchronization offset to the first source to enable local correction of time information at the first source”
However, Sun teaches and configured to implement a flexibility service by altering supply of energy to and/or use of energy from the network ([0066] The controller 119 synchronizes the phases and the frequencies of the first and the second power grid 101, 102, by continually adjusting an amount of power supplied from the power source 116, based on continually determining a frequency mismatch and a phase mismatch between the first grid and the second grid, until a first predetermined condition is met (step 130).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun into the teaching of Bickel because the references similarly disclose inventions pertaining to electrical signals and timing data. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in Bickel to adjust the amount of power because “the converter based synchronizer can control the synchronization parameters for synchronization of the generator, by matching of the amplitude, frequency, and phase of the three-phase output voltages of generator with the same synchronization parameters of the power system with which the generator is synchronized” to eliminate initial transients ([0013], [0016], [0098]).
Bickel, Sun fail to disclose “and configured to implement a flexibility service by altering supply of energy to and/or use of energy from the network; and transmitting the synchronization offset to the first source to enable local correction of time information at the first source”
However, Paczkowski teaches the above limitation ([Abstract] The time offsets may be communicated by the computing devices to remote devices communicatively coupled to the computing device via a first communication network. The remote devices may adjust locally maintained application clocks based on the time offset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paczkowski into the teaching of Bickel, Sun because the references similarly disclose inventions pertaining to electrical signals and timing data. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the system as in the combination of references to further include the transmitting of the offset as in Paczkowski in order to be able to accurately compare and perform other operations between two signals.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bickel (US 2008/0065712) discloses automated data alignment based upon indirect device relationships;
Dzung (US 2014/0036963) discloses clock synchronization for line differential protection;
Sun (US 2024/0413638) discloses frequency modulation method;
Levi (US 2021/0141413) discloses multihost clock synchronization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights