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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 9/6/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “variable” in line 3 should be corrected to the plural form “variables”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 14, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the one or more monitored variables" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the one or more monitored variables" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the one or more monitored variables" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the one or more monitored variables" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uriarte et al. USPGPUB 2022/0140611 A1 (hereinafter Uriarte) in view of Dunn et al. USPGPUB 2021/0089276 A1 (hereinafter Dunn).
Regarding claim 1, Uriarte teaches a controller for operating a power system structure (Fig. 1, Par. [0030], “FIG. 1 is a microgrid 150 (not part of the design system 102) which may include one or more data slaves and may be connected to the controller 120 via a network”; Par. [0045], “microgrid controllers make decisions and return control commands back to the microgrid”), the controller comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device (Par. [0023], “the physical realization of a microgrid controller may be a dedicated, stand-alone, light weight, portable, low-profile, and rugged hardware enclosure … The enclosure may contain a computing device which includes one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processors to continually run a computer program”); and
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to (Par. [0023], “a computing device which includes one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processors to continually run a computer program”): and
receive a controller run-time code for a power system structure (Par. [0035] - [0036], “Both approaches result in a compiled controller assembly file (e.g., .dll file) which can be deployed to microgrid controllers … The deployment feature of the design system copies the controller assembly from the host machine 110 to the target microgrid controller 120.” – the compiled controller assembly corresponds to the controller run-time code because it is executable controller code, and copying it to target microgrid controller 120 causes the controller to receive the controller run-time code.), wherein the controller run-time code is specifically designed to operate the power system structure (Par. [0034], “This file can run on Windows or Linux (or any suitable operating system) and may contain embedded within it the control logic and all communication configuration as specified by the user ... it can be deployed to a microgrid controller for use with a live microgrid.”; Par. [0043], “The assembly receives the data, executes user-defined logic, and produces a response which may be transmitted back to the data server 124. This response is referred to as the control action. The data server 124 may log the response and then submit the control action(s) to the micro grid communication devices” – the controller assembly is specifically designed to operate the power system structure because it contains user-specified control logic and communication configuration for the live microgrid and, during operation, executes the user-defined logic to produce control actions for the microgrid.).
Uriarte does not explicitly teach automatically deploy the controller run-time code on the controller; and
Commission the power system structure using the deployed controller run-time code, wherein the power system structure is commissioned remotely.
However, Dunn teaches automatically deploy the controller run-time code on the controller (Par. [0052], “The IDE system 202 can also include tools that simplify and automate commissioning of the resulting project”; Par. [0078], “some embodiments of IDE system 202 can actively connect to the plant network 116 and discover available devices, ascertain the control hardware architecture present on the plant floor, infer appropriate target devices for respective executable aspects of system project 302, and deploy the system project 302 to these selected target devices.” – Dunn teaches automatic deployment because the IDE system, instead of requiring the user to specify target control devices, actively discovers available devices, infers the appropriate target devices for executable project aspects, and deploys the project to the selected target devices.); and
commission the power system structure using the deployed controller run-time code, wherein the power system structure is commissioned remotely (Par. [0096], “IDE system 202 resides on a cloud platform 1206 and executes as a set of cloud-based IDE service 1202 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 1204.”; Par. [0097], “the project 302 can be commissioned to the plant facility via a secure connection between the office network 108 or the plant network 116 and the cloud platform 1206. As discussed above, the industrial IDE services 1202 can translate system project 302 to appropriate executable files-control program files 702, visualization applications 704, device configuration files 708, system configuration files 1212-and deploy these files to the appropriate devices in the plant facility to facilitate implementation of the automation project” – the cloud-based IDE, accessible to remote client devices, commissions the project to the plant facility through a secure connection and deploys executable files to appropriate plant devices. In the modified Uriarte system, Dunn’s plant facility corresponds to the power system structure, and Dunn’s executable control-program files correspond to the deployed controller run-time code.).
Uriarte and Dunn are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They both relate to generating controller software, deploying controller software to physical controllers, and using the deployed controller software to control physical equipment.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte, and incorporate an automated target device discovery and cloud-based remote commissioning process, as taught by Dunn, such that Uriarte’s compiled controller assembly would be automatically deployed to the appropriate microgrid controller and the associated microgrid would be commissioned remotely using the deployed controller assembly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the process of deploying and commissioning controller software for a physical control system by simplifying and automating commissioning, as suggested by Dunn (Par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to generate a configuration of the power system structure (Par. [0032], “the microgrid simulator 112 may allow users to model, simulate, and visualize electrical networks of arbitrary size (not restricted to micro grids) in advance of deployment. Users can model microgrids using one-line diagrams”; Par. [0049], “After the electrical network design is completed, the design system may receive the communication tags defined by the user. The tags may describe the input data to the controller and also which electrical assets are controllable.”; Par. [0051], “This selection enables configuring the controller element (e.g., specifying its capabilities)” - the modeled electrical network, one-line diagram, communication tags, controllable electrical assets, and configured controller element correspond to the generated configuration of the power system structure.), wherein the controller run-time code is configured based on the generated configuration (Par. [0054], “The user code complies with an interface that is automatically generated by the microgrid simulator … During runtime (e.g., when the controller is being tested or when it is deployed), the inputs to the user code are defined by tags and the data collected from the field.”; Par. [0057], “after the control logic has been designed, the design system may compile the code into a deployable assembly (i.e., .dll file).” – the controller run-time code is configured based on the generated configuration because the deployable assembly is compiled from user code whose interface and runtime inputs are defined by the simulator-generated interface and the communication tags for the configured microgrid, including the configured controller element and declared controllable assets.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to monitor one or more variables for at least one physical element of the power system structure (Par. [0037], “the microgrid controller 120 may deterministically execute at least two computer programs: a data server 124 and the user control logic (e.g., .dll file) 126. The data server 124 may scan the microgrid's communication system 154 on a regular basis to bring-in measurement data.”; Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.” – the monitored measurements correspond to variables for physical elements of the microgrid, such as generator power for a generator, transformer tap settings for a transformer, and cable current for a cable.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to monitor one or more variables of the power system structure (Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure comprise at least one of a power consumption or efficiency (Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.” – load consumption corresponds to a monitored variable comprising power consumption of the power system structure).
Regarding claim 8, Uriarte teaches a computer program product for operating a power system structure via a controller (Par. [0034], “This file can run on Windows or Linux (or any suitable operating system) and may contain embedded within it the control logic and all communication configuration as specified by the user ... it can be deployed to a microgrid controller for use with a live microgrid.”; Par. [0043], “The assembly receives the data, executes user-defined logic, and produces a response which may be transmitted back to the data server 124. This response is referred to as the control action. The data server 124 may log the response and then submit the control action(s) to the micro grid communication devices” – the controller assembly is specifically designed to operate the power system structure because it contains user-specified control logic and communication configuration for the live microgrid and, during operation, executes the user-defined logic to produce control actions for the microgrid.), the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising (Par. [0023], “the physical realization of a microgrid controller may be a dedicated, stand-alone, light weight, portable, low-profile, and rugged hardware enclosure … The enclosure may contain a computing device which includes one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processors to continually run a computer program”):
an executable portion configured to receive a controller run-time code for a power system structure (Par. [0035] - [0036], “Both approaches result in a compiled controller assembly file (e.g., .dll file) which can be deployed to microgrid controllers … The deployment feature of the design system copies the controller assembly from the host machine 110 to the target microgrid controller 120.” – the compiled controller assembly corresponds to the controller run-time code because it is executable controller code, and copying it to target microgrid controller 120 causes the controller to receive the controller run-time code.), wherein the controller run-time code is specifically designed to operate the power system structure (Par. [0034], “This file can run on Windows or Linux (or any suitable operating system) and may contain embedded within it the control logic and all communication configuration as specified by the user ... it can be deployed to a microgrid controller for use with a live microgrid.”; Par. [0046], “the data arrives as inputs to the controller assembly during runtime” – the controller assembly/.dll file contains user-specified control logic and communication configuration and is used during runtime with the live microgrid.).
Uriarte does not explicitly teach an executable portion configured to automatically deploy the controller run-time code on the controller; and
an executable portion configured to commission the power system structure using the deployed controller run-time code, wherein the power system structure is commissioned remotely.
However, Dunn teaches an executable portion configured to automatically deploy the controller run-time code on the controller (Par. [0052], “The IDE system 202 can also include tools that simplify and automate commissioning of the resulting project”; Par. [0078], “some embodiments of IDE system 202 can actively connect to the plant network 116 and discover available devices, ascertain the control hardware architecture present on the plant floor, infer appropriate target devices for respective executable aspects of system project 302, and deploy the system project 302 to these selected target devices.” – Dunn teaches automatic deployment because the IDE system, instead of requiring the user to specify target control devices, actively discovers available devices, infers the appropriate target devices for executable project aspects, and deploys the project to the selected target devices.); and
an executable portion configured to commission the power system structure using the deployed controller run-time code, wherein the power system structure is commissioned remotely (Par. [0096], “IDE system 202 resides on a cloud platform 1206 and executes as a set of cloud-based IDE service 1202 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 1204.”; Par. [0097], “the project 302 can be commissioned to the plant facility via a secure connection between the office network 108 or the plant network 116 and the cloud platform 1206. As discussed above, the industrial IDE services 1202 can translate system project 302 to appropriate executable files-control program files 702, visualization applications 704, device configuration files 708, system configuration files 1212-and deploy these files to the appropriate devices in the plant facility to facilitate implementation of the automation project” – the cloud-based IDE, accessible to remote client devices, commissions the project to the plant facility through a secure connection and deploys executable files to appropriate plant devices. In the modified Uriarte system, Dunn’s plant facility corresponds to the power system structure, and Dunn’s executable control-program files correspond to the deployed controller run-time code).
Uriarte and Dunn are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They both relate to generating controller software, deploying controller software to physical controllers, and using the deployed controller software to control physical equipment.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte, and incorporate an automated target device discovery and cloud-based remote commissioning process, as taught by Dunn, such that Uriarte’s compiled controller assembly would be automatically deployed to the appropriate microgrid controller and the associated microgrid would be commissioned remotely using the deployed controller assembly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the process of deploying and commissioning controller software for a physical control system by simplifying and automating commissioning, as suggested by Dunn (Par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above
Uriarte further teaches wherein the computer-readable program code portions further comprise an executable portion configured to generate a configuration of the power system structure (Par. [0032], “the microgrid simulator 112 may allow users to model, simulate, and visualize electrical networks of arbitrary size (not restricted to micro grids) in advance of deployment. Users can model microgrids using one-line diagrams”; Par. [0049], “After the electrical network design is completed, the design system may receive the communication tags defined by the user. The tags may describe the input data to the controller and also which electrical assets are controllable.”; Par. [0051], “This selection enables configuring the controller element (e.g., specifying its capabilities)” - the modeled electrical network, one-line diagram, communication tags, controllable electrical assets, and configured controller element correspond to the generated configuration of the power system structure.), wherein the controller run-time code is configured based on the generated configuration (Par. [0054], “The user code complies with an interface that is automatically generated by the microgrid simulator … During runtime (e.g., when the controller is being tested or when it is deployed), the inputs to the user code are defined by tags and the data collected from the field.”; Par. [0057], “after the control logic has been designed, the design system may compile the code into a deployable assembly (i.e., .dll file).” – the controller run-time code is configured based on the generated configuration because the deployable assembly is compiled from user code whose interface and runtime inputs are defined by the simulator-generated interface and the communication tags for the configured microgrid, including the configured controller element and declared controllable assets.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above
Uriarte further teaches wherein the computer-readable program code portions further comprise an executable portion configured to monitor one or more variable for at least one physical element of the power system structure (Par. [0037], “the microgrid controller 120 may deterministically execute at least two computer programs: a data server 124 and the user control logic (e.g., .dll file) 126. The data server 124 may scan the microgrid's communication system 154 on a regular basis to bring-in measurement data.”; Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.” – the monitored measurements correspond to variables for physical elements of the microgrid, such as generator power for a generator, transformer tap settings for a transformer, and cable current for a cable.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above
Uriarte further teaches wherein the computer-readable program code portions further comprise an executable portion configured to monitor one or more variables of the power system structure (Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure comprise at least one of a power consumption or efficiency (Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.” – load consumption corresponds to a monitored variable comprising power consumption of the power system structure.).
Regarding claim 15, Uriarte teaches a computer-implemented method for operating a power system structure via a controller (Par. [0034], “This file can run on Windows or Linux (or any suitable operating system) and may contain embedded within it the control logic and all communication configuration as specified by the user ... it can be deployed to a microgrid controller for use with a live microgrid.”; Par. [0043], “The assembly receives the data, executes user-defined logic, and produces a response which may be transmitted back to the data server 124. This response is referred to as the control action. The data server 124 may log the response and then submit the control action(s) to the micro grid communication devices” – the controller assembly is specifically designed to operate the power system structure because it contains user-specified control logic and communication configuration for the live microgrid and, during operation, executes the user-defined logic to produce control actions for the microgrid.), the method comprising:
receiving a controller run-time code for a power system structure (Par. [0035] - [0036], “Both approaches result in a compiled controller assembly file (e.g., .dll file) which can be deployed to microgrid controllers … The deployment feature of the design system copies the controller assembly from the host machine 110 to the target microgrid controller 120.” – the compiled controller assembly corresponds to the controller run-time code because it is executable controller code, and copying it to target microgrid controller 120 causes the controller to receive the controller run-time code.), wherein the controller run-time code is specifically designed to operate the power system structure (Par. [0034], “This file can run on Windows or Linux (or any suitable operating system) and may contain embedded within it the control logic and all communication configuration as specified by the user ... it can be deployed to a microgrid controller for use with a live microgrid.”; Par. [0046], “the data arrives as inputs to the controller assembly during runtime” – the controller assembly/.dll file contains user-specified control logic and communication configuration and is used during runtime with the live microgrid.).
Uriarte does not explicitly teach automatically deploying the controller run-time code on the controller; and
commissioning the power system structure using the deployed controller run-time code, wherein the power system structure is commissioned remotely.
However, Dunn teaches automatically deploying the controller run-time code on the controller (Par. [0052], “The IDE system 202 can also include tools that simplify and automate commissioning of the resulting project”; Par. [0078], “some embodiments of IDE system 202 can actively connect to the plant network 116 and discover available devices, ascertain the control hardware architecture present on the plant floor, infer appropriate target devices for respective executable aspects of system project 302, and deploy the system project 302 to these selected target devices.” – Dunn teaches automatic deployment because the IDE system, instead of requiring the user to specify target control devices, actively discovers available devices, infers the appropriate target devices for executable project aspects, and deploys the project to the selected target devices.); and
commissioning the power system structure using the deployed controller run-time code, wherein the power system structure is commissioned remotely (Par. [0096], “IDE system 202 resides on a cloud platform 1206 and executes as a set of cloud-based IDE service 1202 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 1204.”; Par. [0097], “the project 302 can be commissioned to the plant facility via a secure connection between the office network 108 or the plant network 116 and the cloud platform 1206. As discussed above, the industrial IDE services 1202 can translate system project 302 to appropriate executable files-control program files 702, visualization applications 704, device configuration files 708, system configuration files 1212-and deploy these files to the appropriate devices in the plant facility to facilitate implementation of the automation project” – the cloud-based IDE, accessible to remote client devices, commissions the project to the plant facility through a secure connection and deploys executable files to appropriate plant devices. In the modified Uriarte system, Dunn’s plant facility corresponds to the power system structure, and Dunn’s executable control-program files correspond to the deployed controller run-time code.).
Uriarte and Dunn are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They both relate to generating controller software, deploying controller software to physical controllers, and using the deployed controller software to control physical equipment.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte, and incorporate an automated target device discovery and cloud-based remote commissioning process, as taught by Dunn, such that Uriarte’s compiled controller assembly would be automatically deployed to the appropriate microgrid controller and the associated microgrid would be commissioned remotely using the deployed controller assembly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the process of deploying and commissioning controller software for a physical control system by simplifying and automating commissioning, as suggested by Dunn (Par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches monitoring one or more variables for at least one physical element of the power system structure (Par. [0037], “the microgrid controller 120 may deterministically execute at least two computer programs: a data server 124 and the user control logic (e.g., .dll file) 126. The data server 124 may scan the microgrid's communication system 154 on a regular basis to bring-in measurement data.”; Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.” – the monitored measurements correspond to variables for physical elements of the microgrid, such as generator power for a generator, transformer tap settings for a transformer, and cable current for a cable.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches generating a configuration of the power system structure (Par. [0032], “the microgrid simulator 112 may allow users to model, simulate, and visualize electrical networks of arbitrary size (not restricted to micro grids) in advance of deployment. Users can model microgrids using one-line diagrams”; Par. [0049], “After the electrical network design is completed, the design system may receive the communication tags defined by the user. The tags may describe the input data to the controller and also which electrical assets are controllable.”; Par. [0051], “This selection enables configuring the controller element (e.g., specifying its capabilities)” - the modeled electrical network, one-line diagram, communication tags, controllable electrical assets, and configured controller element correspond to the generated configuration of the power system structure.), wherein the controller run-time code is configured based on the generated configuration (Par. [0054], “The user code complies with an interface that is automatically generated by the microgrid simulator … During runtime (e.g., when the controller is being tested or when it is deployed), the inputs to the user code are defined by tags and the data collected from the field.”; Par. [0057], “after the control logic has been designed, the design system may compile the code into a deployable assembly (i.e., .dll file).” – the controller run-time code is configured based on the generated configuration because the deployable assembly is compiled from user code whose interface and runtime inputs are defined by the simulator-generated interface and the communication tags for the configured microgrid, including the configured controller element and declared controllable assets.).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure comprise at least one of a power consumption or efficiency (Par. [0033], “the monitoring system 114 may collect measurements from both microgrid and microgrid controllers. The design system 102 may include a data server configured to receive, e.g., via the network, data from the field. Data from the field may include, for example, field measurements such as bus voltages, generator power, load consumption, transformer tap settings, cable current, etc.” – load consumption corresponds to a monitored variable comprising power consumption of the power system structure.).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uriarte et al. USPGPUB 2022/0140611 A1 (hereinafter Uriarte) in view of Dunn et al. USPGPUB 2021/0089276 A1 (hereinafter Dunn), and further in view of Cherian et al. USPGPUB 2015/0012146 A1 (hereinafter Cherian).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to receive an update to the controller run-time code (Par. [0026], “If the monitored data reveals performance deficiencies as a result of improper control actions, the control logic may be tuned and re-deployed instantly without decommissioning the microgrid controller. Re-deployment without decommissioning may be referred to herein as "hot-swapping."”; Par. [0071], “When re-deploying a controller, a hot-swap technique may replace the controllers inside the hardware with the new design” – the tuned and re-deployed control logic/new design corresponds to an update to the controller run-time code).
Uriarte and Dunn do not explicitly teach updating the controller run-time code based on a change to the power system structure.
However, Cherian teaches updating the controller run-time code based on a change to the power system structure (Par. [0057], “The system of the present invention enables the individual components of the power grid, energy consumers and producers, to change dynamically without detrimentally affecting the stability and reliability of the distributed power grid.”; Par. [0103], “the control and management of distributed energy resources using a network operating system can include among other things allocation of energy production, modification of network topology, energy storage allocations, load management, simulations.”; The distributed controller dynamically and automatically compensates for assets that may be added, go out of service, fail, or lose connectivity. This capability gives the current invention a highly scalable nature minimizing the need to manually change the system every time there is a change in network structure or DER availability.” – the dynamic change of power grid components and modification of network topology correspond to a change to the power system structure).
Uriarte, Dunn, and Cherian are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all generate or deploy controller software for physical control systems and operate physical power or automation equipment using controller logic.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte and Dunn, and incorporate a dynamic power grid configuration change technique, as taught by Cherian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve stability and reliability of a distributed power grid during the process of updating controller software for a physical power system, by allowing controller operation to account for dynamically changing power grid components and topology, as suggested by Cherian (Par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches wherein the computer-readable program code portions further comprise an executable portion configured to receive an update to the controller run-time code (Par. [0026], “If the monitored data reveals performance deficiencies as a result of improper control actions, the control logic may be tuned and re-deployed instantly without decommissioning the microgrid controller. Re-deployment without decommissioning may be referred to herein as "hot-swapping."”; Par. [0071], “When re-deploying a controller, a hot-swap technique may replace the controllers inside the hardware with the new design” – the tuned and re-deployed control logic/new design corresponds to an update to the controller run-time code).
Uriarte and Dunn do not explicitly teach updating the controller run-time code based on a change to the power system structure.
However, Cherian teaches updating the controller run-time code based on a change to the power system structure (Par. [0057], “The system of the present invention enables the individual components of the power grid, energy consumers and producers, to change dynamically without detrimentally affecting the stability and reliability of the distributed power grid.”; Par. [0103], “the control and management of distributed energy resources using a network operating system can include among other things allocation of energy production, modification of network topology, energy storage allocations, load management, simulations.”; Par. [0060], “The distributed controller dynamically and automatically compensates for assets that may be added, go out of service, fail, or lose connectivity. This capability gives the current invention a highly scalable nature minimizing the need to manually change the system every time there is a change in network structure or DER availability” – the dynamic change of power grid components and modification of network topology correspond to a change to the power system structure).
Uriarte, Dunn, and Cherian are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all generate or deploy controller software for physical control systems and operate physical power or automation equipment using controller logic.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte and Dunn, and incorporate a dynamic power grid configuration change technique, as taught by Cherian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve stability and reliability of a distributed power grid during the process of updating controller software for a physical power system, by allowing controller operation to account for dynamically changing power grid components and topology, as suggested by Cherian (Par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte further teaches receiving an update to the controller runtime code (Par. [0026], “If the monitored data reveals performance deficiencies as a result of improper control actions, the control logic may be tuned and re-deployed instantly without decommissioning the microgrid controller. Re-deployment without decommissioning may be referred to herein as "hot-swapping."”; Par. [0071], “When re-deploying a controller, a hot-swap technique may replace the controllers inside the hardware with the new design” – the tuned and re-deployed control logic/new design corresponds to an update to the controller run-time code).
Uriarte and Dunn do not explicitly teach receiving an update to the controller runtime code based on a change to the power system structure.
However, Cherian teaches receiving an update to the controller runtime code based on a change to the power system structure (Par. [0057], “The system of the present invention enables the individual components of the power grid, energy consumers and producers, to change dynamically without detrimentally affecting the stability and reliability of the distributed power grid.”; Par. [0103], “the control and management of distributed energy resources using a network operating system can include among other things allocation of energy production, modification of network topology, energy storage allocations, load management, simulations.”; Par. [0060], “The distributed controller dynamically and automatically compensates for assets that may be added, go out of service, fail, or lose connectivity. This capability gives the current invention a highly scalable nature minimizing the need to manually change the system every time there is a change in network structure or DER availability” – the dynamic change of power grid components and modification of network topology correspond to a change to the power system structure).
Uriarte, Dunn, and Cherian are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all generate or deploy controller software for physical control systems and operate physical power or automation equipment using controller logic.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte and Dunn, and incorporate a dynamic power grid configuration change technique, as taught by Cherian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve stability and reliability of a distributed power grid during the process of updating controller software for a physical power system, by allowing controller operation to account for dynamically changing power grid components and topology, as suggested by Cherian (Par. [0057]).
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uriarte et al. USPGPUB 2022/0140611 A1 (hereinafter Uriarte) in view of Dunn et al. USPGPUB 20210089276 A1 (hereinafter Dunn), and further in view of Finkelstein et al. US 11,183,874 B1 (hereinafter Finkelstein).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte and Dunn do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to cause a transmission of an alert message based on a change in at least one of the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure.
However, Finkelstein teaches wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to cause a transmission of an alert message based on a change in at least one of the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure (Col. 18, lines 55-57, “the monitoring system 426 can detect an anomaly in the time series of observed values when the temporal changes exhibit a spike.”; Col. 19, lines 17-26, “The exception handling process can further include generating a message including at least one of the location or data indicating the type of anomaly that is present in the status data. Such a message can serve as a warning of the presence of the anomaly in the status data, at a particular location. … the exception handling process also can include sending the message to at least one of the power supplier management devices 490.”).
Uriarte, Dunn, and Finkelstein are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to monitoring power system operating data and using computer-based control and monitoring systems to improve operation of physical power systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte and Dunn, and incorporate an anomaly-based warning message transmission, as taught by Finkelstein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the process of monitoring a physical power system by proactively notifying a power supplier of potential operational failures or issues, as suggested by Finkelstein (Col. 3, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte and Dunn do not explicitly teach wherein the computer-readable program code portions further comprise an executable portion configured to cause a transmission of an alert message based on a change in at least one of the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure.
However, Finkelstein teaches wherein the computer-readable program code portions further comprise an executable portion configured to cause a transmission of an alert message based on a change in at least one of the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure (Col. 18, lines 55-57, “the monitoring system 426 can detect an anomaly in the time series of observed values when the temporal changes exhibit a spike.”; Col. 19, lines 17-26, “The exception handling process can further include generating a message including at least one of the location or data indicating the type of anomaly that is present in the status data. Such a message can serve as a warning of the presence of the anomaly in the status data, at a particular location. … the exception handling process also can include sending the message to at least one of the power supplier management devices 490.”).
Uriarte, Dunn, and Finkelstein are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to monitoring power system operating data and using computer-based control and monitoring systems to improve operation of physical power systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte and Dunn, and incorporate an anomaly-based warning message transmission, as taught by Finkelstein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the process of monitoring a physical power system by proactively notifying a power supplier of potential operational failures or issues, as suggested by Finkelstein (Col. 3, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Uriarte and Dunn teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Uriarte and Dunn do not explicitly teach causing a transmission of an alert message based on a change in at least one of the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure.
However, Finkelstein teaches causing a transmission of an alert message based on a change in at least one of the one or more monitored variables of the power system structure (Col. 18, lines 55-57, “the monitoring system 426 can detect an anomaly in the time series of observed values when the temporal changes exhibit a spike.”; Col. 19, lines 17-26, “The exception handling process can further include generating a message including at least one of the location or data indicating the type of anomaly that is present in the status data. Such a message can serve as a warning of the presence of the anomaly in the status data, at a particular location. … the exception handling process also can include sending the message to at least one of the power supplier management devices 490.”).
Uriarte, Dunn, and Finkelstein are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to monitoring power system operating data and using computer-based control and monitoring systems to improve operation of physical power systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above microgrid controller deployment system, as taught by Uriarte and Dunn, and incorporate an anomaly-based warning message transmission, as taught by Finkelstein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the process of monitoring a physical power system by proactively notifying a power supplier of potential operational failures or issues, as suggested by Finkelstein (Col. 3, lines 7-11).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ben Hanoch et al. [USPGPUB 2016/0276873 A1] teaches distributed energy resource management and compensating for changes in power-grid network structure or distributed energy resource availability.
Coyne et al. [US 8,903,559 B2] teaches the method includes receiving details of a configuring process enabled by a power grid monitoring/control device associated with a power grid network topology comprising monitoring points associated and a power distribution grid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights