DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an isolating operation planning unit that…creates a proposed isolating operation plan” in claim 1
“a system analysis unit that performs system analysis” in claim 1
“a constraint addition unit that…adds a constraint” in claim 1
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to functional descriptive material: computer programs representing computer listings per se.
Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. US 2013/0184889 (“Fan”).
Fan discloses:
1. An isolating operation planning device comprising:
an isolating operation planning unit that, in order to perform isolating operation for a power system section isolated from a power system, creates a proposed isolating operation plan with areas as isolating operation sections, the areas having at least distributed power sources therein or being equipped with power supply vehicles, among areas that are included in the isolating power system section and are divided by adjacent switches (e.g., Fig. 1 #16, claim 1);
a system analysis unit that performs system analysis based on the proposed isolating operation plan and determines whether isolating operation is able to be performed (e.g., claim 4); and
a constraint addition unit that, when the system analysis unit determines that isolating operation is not able to be performed, adds a constraint condition when creating the proposed isolating operation plan to cause the isolating operation planning unit to create the proposed isolating operation plan again (e.g., Fig. 2 #30, [0015]-[0016], [0034]-[0035], claim 8).
2. The isolating operation planning device according to claim 1, wherein,
when the system analysis unit determines that isolating operation is not able to be performed, the system analysis unit outputs unadoptable information including a timing when an event making isolating operation impossible occurs (e.g., [0034]-[0035]), and
the isolating operation planning unit includes, in the proposed isolating operation plan, final open/closed states of the switches and either time-series information for changing the open/closed states of the switches or an order in which the open/closed states of the switches are changed (e.g., [0039]).
3. The isolating operation planning device according to claim 2, wherein the proposed isolating operation plan is for planning a configuration of an isolating operation system in each of a plurality of time steps (e.g., [0034]-[0035]).
4. The isolating operation planning device according to claim 2, wherein the constraint addition unit outputs, to the isolating operation planning unit, the constraint condition for resolving the event at the timing when the event making isolating operation impossible occurs (e.g., [0034]-[0035]).
5. The isolating operation planning device according to claim 2, further comprising a screen output unit that displays, on a display device, any of the timing when the event making isolating operation impossible occurs, the final open/closed states of the switches, the time-series information for changing the open/closed states of the switches, or the order in which the open/closed states of the switches are changed (e.g., [0022]).
6. The isolating operation planning device according to claim 1, wherein the isolating operation planning unit is able to create the proposed isolating operation plan in which isolating operation is not performed for all of the areas (e.g., [0037]).
7. An isolating operation planning method causing a computer to execute:
an isolating operation planning process of, in order to perform isolating operation for a power system section isolated from a power system, creating a proposed isolating operation plan with areas as isolating operation sections, the areas having at least distributed power sources therein or being equipped with power supply vehicles, among areas that are included in the isolating power system section and are divided by adjacent switches (e.g., Fig. 1 #16, claim 1);
a system analysis process of performing system analysis based on the proposed isolating operation plan and determining whether isolating operation is able to be performed (e.g., claim 4); and
a constraint addition process of, when it is determined that isolating operation is not able to be performed in the system analysis process, adding a constraint condition when creating the proposed isolating operation plan to execute the isolating operation planning process again (e.g., Fig. 2 #30, [0015]-[0016], [0034]-[0035], claim 8).
8. The isolating operation planning method according to claim 7, wherein
the system analysis process is a process of outputting unadoptable information including a timing when an event making isolating operation impossible occurs when it is determined that isolating operation is not able to be performed (e.g., [0034]-[0035]), and
the isolating operation planning process is a process of including, in the proposed isolating operation plan, final open/closed states of the switches and either time- 53 series information for changing the open/closed states of the switches or an order in which the open/closed states of the switches are changed (e.g., [0039]).
9. The isolating operation planning method according to claim 8, wherein the proposed isolating operation plan is for planning a configuration of an isolating operation system in each of a plurality of time steps (e.g., [0034]-[0035]).
10. The isolating operation planning method according to claim 8, wherein the constraint addition process outputs the constraint condition for resolving the event at the timing when the event making isolating operation impossible occurs in the isolating operation planning process (e.g., [0034]-[0035]).
11. The isolating operation planning method according to claim 8, further causing the computer to execute a display output process of displaying, on a display device, any of the timing when the event making isolating operation impossible occurs, the final open/closed states of the switches, the time-series information for changing the open/closed states of the switches, or the order in which the open/closed states of the switches are changed (e.g., [0022]).
12. The isolating operation planning method according to claim 7, wherein, in the isolating operation planning process, the proposed isolating operation plan in which isolating operation is not performed for all of the areas is able to be created (e.g., [0037]).
13. A program causing a computer to function as:
an isolating operation planning means that, in order to perform isolating operation for a power system section isolated from a power system, creates a proposed isolating operation plan with areas as isolating operation sections, the areas having at least distributed power sources therein or being equipped with power supply vehicles, among areas that are included in the isolating power system section and are divided by adjacent switches (e.g., Fig. 1 #16, claim 1);
a system analysis means that performs system analysis based on the proposed isolating operation plan and determines whether isolating operation is able to be performed (e.g., claim 4); and
a constraint addition means that, when the system analysis means determines that isolating operation is not able to be performed, adds a constraint condition when creating the proposed isolating operation plan to cause the isolating operation planning means to create the proposed isolating operation plan again (e.g., Fig. 2 #30, [0015]-[0016], [0034]-[0035], claim 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. US 2022/0244692 discloses a planning method for a power distribution automation system based on a reliability constraint, including: defining installation states of components and principles of a fault isolation, a load transfer and a fault recovery after a branch fault occurs; establishing a reliability evaluation optimization model for a power distribution network based on a mixed integer linear programming, the reliability evaluation optimization model comprising a target function and constraint conditions; solving the reliability evaluation optimization model to obtain an optimum planning scheme; and planning the power distribution automation system based on the optimum planning scheme.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
07/28/26
Prosecution Insights