Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0039835, filed on 3/27/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/13/25, 11/25/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a processor that is configured to identify a first grid frequency variation and a measured frequency according to injection of reactive power, identify whether at least one of the first grid frequency variation or the measured frequency exceeds a critical range, and detect an islanding based on the number of times of exceeding the critical range within a predefined period of time” is directed to an abstract idea of using a mathematical algorithm. The steps listed is merely a part of software instructions to be carried out using a generic processor/computer. Data acquisition, mathematical algorithm carried out using a generic processor is considered an abstract idea by the courts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea itself is monopolized here and the limitations is considered as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (power grid).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because using a generic processor is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior arts of record: Nishi Shunsuke (JP 2014212631), Figures 1-15, provided in the IDS; Park Moonho (EP 3654483), Figures 1-10, provided in the IDS; Farese Luca (EP 3079217), Figures 1-4)).
7. Claims 2-11 are also rejected as they further limit claim 1.
8. Regarding claim 12, the limitation of “identifying a first grid frequency variation and a measured frequency according to injection of reactive power; identifying whether at least one of the first grid frequency variation or the measured frequency exceeds a critical range; and detecting an islanding based on the number of times of exceeding the critical range within a predefined period of time” is directed to an abstract idea of using a mathematical algorithm. The steps listed is merely a part of software instructions to be carried out using a generic processor/computer. Data acquisition, mathematical algorithm carried out using a generic processor is considered an abstract idea by the courts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea itself is monopolized here and the limitations is considered as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (power grid).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because using a generic processor is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of art (see prior arts of record: Nishi Shunsuke (JP 2014212631), Figures 1-15, provided in the IDS; Park Moonho (EP 3654483), Figures 1-10, provided in the IDS; Farese Luca (EP 3079217), Figures 1-4)).
9. Claims 13-20 are also rejected as they further limit claim 12.
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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Park Moonho (EP 3654483). (“Park”).
12. Regarding claim 1, Park teaches A power conditioning system comprising: a processor that is configured to identify a first grid frequency variation and a measured frequency according to injection of reactive power, identify whether at least one of the first grid frequency variation or the measured frequency exceeds a critical range, and detect an islanding based on the number of times of exceeding the critical range within a predefined period of time [Figures 1-10, a processor configured to identify grid frequency variation and measured frequency is taught, islanding is detected, see Abstract].
13. Regarding claim 12, Park teaches A method of detecting an islanding, the method comprising: identifying a first grid frequency variation and a measured frequency according to injection of reactive power; identifying whether at least one of the first grid frequency variation or the measured frequency exceeds a critical range; and detecting an islanding based on the number of times of exceeding the critical range within a predefined period of time [Figures 1-10, a processor configured to identify grid frequency variation and measured frequency is taught, islanding is detected, see Abstract].
Note: no prior art rejection is made for dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights