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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 10/25/2024.
Claims 1-13 are pending and presented for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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: “a typhoon countermeasures candidate calculation unit”, “a reliability economy index value calculation unit”, and “a typhoon countermeasures determination unit” in claim 1; and “a typhoon countermeasures transmission unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected as a formality because the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph language in these claims does not have sufficient structure in the specification. The rejection matches the below indefiniteness rejection for the same language. Once that rejection is overcome, this one will be as well.
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 1-11 are 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 1, the limitations “a typhoon countermeasures candidate calculation unit”, “a reliability economy index value calculation unit”, and “a typhoon countermeasures determination unit” and claim 10, the limitation “a typhoon countermeasures transmission unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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 1-13 are 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.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons outlined below. Please note that the examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The Applicant is required to review all claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
Regarding claims 1 and 12
Claims 1 and 12 each recite “for each typhoon countermeasures case” however, “typhoon countermeasures case” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 “an output of a power station” and “output information of a power station”, however this is unclear. Is the second instance of “a power station” referring to the first recited power station or is it referring to a different (e.g., a second) power station?
Claims 1 and 12 each recite two instances of “a power outage”, however this is unclear. Is the second instance of “a power outage” referring to the first recited power outage or is it referring to a different power outage?
Claims 1 and 12 recites multiple instances of to obtaining “reliability economy index value calculation result data, which is an index value of reliability economy”, however this is unclear as “reliability economy” is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 3
Claim 3 recites “a wind speed”, however this is unclear as “a wind speed” was introduced in claim 1. Is the “a wind speed” of claim 3 referring to a different wind speed?
Claim 3 recites two instances of “a transmission tower”, however this is unclear. Is the second instance of “a transmission tower” referring to the first recited transmission tower or is it referring to a different transmission tower?
Claim 3 recites “a change value”, however this is unclear as “a change value” was introduced in claim 1. Is the “a change value” of claim 3 referring to a different change value?
Claim 3 recites “an output of a power station” however this is unclear as “an output of a power station” was already introduced in claim 1. Is this a different output of the same power station, a different output of a different power station, or the same output of the same power station?
Claim 3 recites that the device “obtains a cutoff rate of a transmission line from a collapse rate of a transmission tower by a typhoon”, however this is unclear as “a typhoon” was introduced in claim 1. Is this a different typhoon or the same? Additionally, while collapse rate appears to be defined as a likelihood or probability of collapse ([0065] of instant specification), “cutoff rate” is not clearly redefined in the specification and in view of the indefiniteness issues outlined the claim is unclear and ambiguous. As such, the claim is interpreted in accordance with [0014] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 4
Claim 4 recites “an output change of a power station” and subsequently recites “a power station”, however this is unclear as “an output change of a power station” and “a power station” were previously introduced.
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 recites “for each substation”, “for each consumer” and “for each consumer type”, however the aforementioned claim elements lack proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7
Claim 7 recites “expansion details for system maintenance countermeasures”, however this is unclear. The specification was referenced however no definition or an example of what “expansion details” is intended to cover was identified. While the claim does not recite new terminology per se, the claim is vague and unclear and the specification’s lack of example of what “expansion details” is intended to include renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Refer to the prior art rejection below for the examiner’s interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 recites that the “reliability economy index value calculation result data includes the typhoon countermeasures case […] and an index value of reliability economy in the typhoon countermeasures case”, however this is unclear as claim 1 recites that the reliability economy index value calculation result data “is an index value of reliability economy”. In other words, claim 8 now requires that the reliability economy index value calculation result data, which is an index value of reliability economy, includes an index value of reliability economy in the typhoon countermeasures case. The claim’s ambiguity and lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty due to the confusion and uncertainty introduced as a result of the ambiguity and lack of clarity.
In view of the indefiniteness issues outlined above regarding claim 7, considerable speculation about the terms employed in the claim and/or assumptions must be made to the scope of the claim, thus it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art, see MPEP 2173.06(II).
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the above reasons. Please note that the examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The Applicant is required to review all claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a device, which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
a unit “that obtains typhoon countermeasures candidate calculation result data including a change value of an output of a power station for each typhoon countermeasures case from typhoon information data including at least course information and wind speed of a typhoon and system operation countermeasures candidate data including output information of a power station” (Mental process – obtaining calculation result data that includes a change of an output of a power station is an observation and/or an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
a unit “that that obtains reliability economy index value calculation result data, which is an index value of reliability economy, from the typhoon countermeasures candidate calculation result data, system data indicating a system configuration, damage cost data associated with a power outage, and reliability economy index data indicating a weight on an influence of a power outage” (Mental process – obtaining calculation result data from the previously obtained calculation result data that includes a system configuration, a cost associated with a power outage, and an index indicating a likelihood weight is an observation and/or and evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
a unit “that obtains typhoon countermeasures determination result data from the reliability economy index value calculation result data” (Mental process – obtaining result data from the previously obtained calculation result data is an observation and/or and evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong Two: There are no additional elements recited in the claim.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, as there are no additional elements recited in the claim.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 fail to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more, and are also rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1. As such, the analysis outlined above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 12, and therefore the claim is not eligible. Dependent claim 13 fails to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is also rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (US20230361565A1) in view of ANAGNOSTOU (US20190228362A1) in view of PATT (US20230116902A1) (hereinafter – “WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT”).
Regarding claim 1
WANG teaches a planned power system operation device (Abstract systems and methods simulate power distribution system reconfigurations for contingencies), comprising:
a [0006] “reconfiguration simulations for multiple contingencies […] topology reconfiguration algorithm models a distribution system and simulates single (N-1),sequential (N-1-1), or simultaneous (N-k) contingency scenarios. The topology reconfiguration algorithm seeks to determine which set of switches to operate in a distribution system to serve maximum load while adhering to network and operational constraints such as radial structure, line and transformer loading limits, and bus voltages. The contingency analyses are useable for either pre-outage planning or post-outage recovery” [0024] system simulates contingencies for N-k outages for various values of k [0027] “For every contingency, STS algorithm 330 seeks out all possible feasible reconfiguration solutions according to the following steps” [0028] “Based on the new loading values, the simulation engine 112 performs estimations of bus voltages, feeder cable current flow, and transformer loads for assessment with respect to system constraints, such as for feeder capacity (e.g., current (Ampere) overloading), transformer capacity, and minimum bus voltage (e.g.,0.95 rated voltage). If all constraints are satisfied within a defined tolerance, the simulation engine 112 determines the current reconfiguration attempt to be satisfactory under safety and system stability requirements”);
a reliability economy index value calculation unit that obtains reliability economy index value calculation result data, which is an index value of reliability economy, from the [0029] “Candidate reconfigurations are ranked according to success rate scores and/or which reconfigurations maximize the reconnected load” [0047] “islanded components are ranked by decision tree engine 111 in order of importance criteria. For example, an importance grade may be assigned to components according to categories, such as components that feed essential services (e.g., hospitals) and components that feed largest blocks of consumers. Other criteria may be defined as necessary for importance ranking”); and
a[0047] “Decision tree engine 111 identifies switches with the largest operating margin (based on feeder cable and transformer capacity ratings) and down-selects these branches (step 904). Further filtering on the highest ranking components is performed based on other factors, such as loading of the grid connected feeder on the energized side of the switch (i.e., corresponding to number of consumers) and the nodal voltage being above minimum specifications, are also taken into consideration (step 905). Decision tree engine 111 selects a switch with highest rank as the best solution and closes the switch in the virtual model (step 906). For sequential decision making, the algorithm proceeds by re-ranking the loads and proceeding with the previous steps until there are no more islands in the network”).
In summary, WANG teaches to plan contingency operations for a power outage of a power system by generating candidate power system reconfigurations, including generating new bus voltages, such that the contingency operation reconfiguration is ranked according to an importance grade, wherein the important grade takes into account the influence that the power outage has on consumers, such as hospitals, such that the candidate power system reconfigurations are filtered and a reconfiguration with the highest rank is chosen as the best solution. WANG also teaches to perform N-k contingency operation analysis for a severe weather event that causes k outages of the power system. However, WANG is not relied on for predicting the outages of the power system based on severe weather event data, wherein the data includes course information and wind speed.
ANAGNOSTOU in an analogous art teaches to use weather forecasts and weather data as a method for outage prediction in a power system such that outages associated with a hurricane/typhoon can be accurately forecasted ([0003] “outage prediction for electrical distribution utilities using high-resolution weather forecasts” [0121] “If the damage before a hurricane could be accurately forecasted, then emergency-preparedness efforts could be vastly improved by deploying restoration crews and supplies ahead of a hurricane's land fall”). ANAGNOSTOU’s method “provides an outage prediction system comprising an electronic processor configured to receive, from a database, dynamic weather data and geographic data from data storage, combine the dynamic weather data with the geographic information to generate a file identifying parameters of a forthcoming weather event” such that the likelihood of a power outage in a particular location can be quantified ([0005]). However, ANAGNOSTOU is not relied on to for wherein the weather data includes course information and wind speed of the typhoon.
PATT in an analogous art teaches to obtain real-time weather data such as wind speed and storm path/course information such that the data can be used to predict a catastrophic weather even, such as a hurricane ([0084] “monitoring services can comprise a weather forecasting service (402) and/or a satellite service (404). Additionally, the computing system 100 can receive additional monitoring data from additional monitoring resources 180, as described above. The computing system 100 then predicts that an event will occur in a given geographic area (405). The event can comprise a catastrophic weather event (407), such as a hurricane” Claim 7 monitoring data includes wind speed, wind direction, storm path).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of PATT and ANAGNOSTOU to the teachings of WANG such that WANG’s device would have been configured to obtain course information and wind speed of a typhoon for the purposes of determining likelihoods of where, geographically, the power outages would occur in the power system, such that the system would determine the best solution for the contingency operations for pre-outage planning and to minimize restoration time for critical loads such as hospitals (Wang, [0002], [0006]).
Regarding claim 2
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1. ANAGNOSTOU discloses wherein the typhoon information data includes information about a past typhoon ([0005]: dataset of variables of past weather events), PATT disclose wherein typhoon information data includes wind speed and course information (claim 7).
Regarding claim 4
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1. WANG also teaches wherein the system operation countermeasure candidate data includes a system operation countermeasure of at least an output change of a power station ([0006] “determine which set of switches to operate in a distribution system to serve maximum load while adhering to network and operational constraints such as radial structure, line and transformer loading limits, and bus voltages”).
Regarding claim 7
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1. WANG also suggests that the countermeasure candidate calculation result data includes at least any of expansion details for system maintenance countermeasure and operation change details for system operation countermeasure ([0028]: “takes the reconstructed graph and executes the simulation step 313 using a decision for operating an open switch to a closed state, which connects a load to the expanded bus in the virtual model […] simulation engine 112 performs estimations of bus voltages, feeder cable current flow, and transformer loads for assessment with respect to system constraints, such as for feeder capacity (e.g., current (Ampere) overloading), transformer capacity, and minimum bus voltage (e.g.,0.95 rated voltage). If all constraints are satisfied within a defined tolerance, the simulation engine 112 determines the current reconfiguration attempt to be satisfactory under safety and system stability requirements”, i.e., the device is configured to compensate for changes in bus voltages in response to grid reconfigurations).
Regarding claim 9
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. WANG teaches to select the highest ranked typhoon countermeasures case, wherein the ranking is determined using index values of reliability economy in the typhoon countermeasures case ([0047]: “islanded components are ranked by decision tree engine 111 in order of importance criteria. For example, an importance grade may be assigned to components according to categories, such as components that feed essential services (e.g., hospitals) and components that feed largest blocks of consumers. Other criteria may be defined as necessary for importance ranking […] Decision tree engine 111 selects a switch with highest rank as the best solution and closes the switch in the virtual model (step 906). For sequential decision making, the algorithm proceeds by re-ranking the loads and proceeding with the previous steps until there are no more islands in the network. Stochastic versions of the N-k formulation where the outages are probabilistic can be handled by using a probability of load loss index to rank the islands”). In summary, WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teach to assign an importance ranking such that a grid reconfiguration/countermeasure case can be ranked for the purposes of choosing the case with the highest ranking for implementation of the reconfiguration. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT such the rankings of more importance were given lower values than rankings of less important such that that the typhoon countermeasures were selected based on the minimum sum of importance ranks/index values of reliability economy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. WANG also teaches that the device comprises a transmission unit configured to communicate with other computing devices ([0059]), and at least suggests transmitting countermeasures determination result data/grid reconfigurations to a power system operation device ([0001] “application relates to power distribution system reconfigurations for multiple outage contingencies”, [0002] “Fast response to line outages requires taking critical control actions in a proper sequence for system risk mitigation […] Switching often requires dispatching a work crew to manually operate the switches, and the proper sequence for multiple switch operations is critical” teaches a need for computer implemented grid reconfigurations of an energy management system in response to power outages).
Regarding claim 11
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. WANG also teaches that the device is a part of an integrated computing environment and that the device’s functionality can be implemented as software or hardware in devices that comprise the computing environment ([0059] & Fig. 10), and at least suggests that the device is an internal device of an energy management system ([0001] “application relates to power distribution system reconfigurations for multiple outage contingencies”, [0002] “Fast response to line outages requires taking critical control actions in a proper sequence for system risk mitigation […] Switching often requires dispatching a work crew to manually operate the switches, and the proper sequence for multiple switch operations is critical” teaches a need for computer implemented grid reconfigurations of an energy management system in response to power outages).
Regarding claim 12
WANG teaches a planned power system operation device (Abstract systems and methods simulate power distribution system reconfigurations for contingencies), comprising:
a [0006] “reconfiguration simulations for multiple contingencies […] topology reconfiguration algorithm models a distribution system and simulates single (N-1),sequential (N-1-1), or simultaneous (N-k) contingency scenarios. The topology reconfiguration algorithm seeks to determine which set of switches to operate in a distribution system to serve maximum load while adhering to network and operational constraints such as radial structure, line and transformer loading limits, and bus voltages. The contingency analyses are useable for either pre-outage planning or post-outage recovery” [0024] system simulates contingencies for N-k outages for various values of k [0027] “For every contingency, STS algorithm 330 seeks out all possible feasible reconfiguration solutions according to the following steps” [0028] “Based on the new loading values, the simulation engine 112 performs estimations of bus voltages, feeder cable current flow, and transformer loads for assessment with respect to system constraints, such as for feeder capacity (e.g., current (Ampere) overloading), transformer capacity, and minimum bus voltage (e.g.,0.95 rated voltage). If all constraints are satisfied within a defined tolerance, the simulation engine 112 determines the current reconfiguration attempt to be satisfactory under safety and system stability requirements”);
a reliability economy index value calculation unit that obtains reliability economy index value calculation result data, which is an index value of reliability economy, from the [0029] “Candidate reconfigurations are ranked according to success rate scores and/or which reconfigurations maximize the reconnected load” [0047] “islanded components are ranked by decision tree engine 111 in order of importance criteria. For example, an importance grade may be assigned to components according to categories, such as components that feed essential services (e.g., hospitals) and components that feed largest blocks of consumers. Other criteria may be defined as necessary for importance ranking”); and
a[0047] “Decision tree engine 111 identifies switches with the largest operating margin (based on feeder cable and transformer capacity ratings) and down-selects these branches (step 904). Further filtering on the highest ranking components is performed based on other factors, such as loading of the grid connected feeder on the energized side of the switch (i.e., corresponding to number of consumers) and the nodal voltage being above minimum specifications, are also taken into consideration (step 905). Decision tree engine 111 selects a switch with highest rank as the best solution and closes the switch in the virtual model (step 906). For sequential decision making, the algorithm proceeds by re-ranking the loads and proceeding with the previous steps until there are no more islands in the network”).
In summary, WANG teaches to plan contingency operations for a power outage of a power system by generating candidate power system reconfigurations, including generating new bus voltages, such that the contingency operation reconfiguration is ranked according to an importance grade, wherein the important grade takes into account the influence that the power outage has on consumers, such as hospitals, such that the candidate power system reconfigurations are filtered and a reconfiguration with the highest rank is chosen as the best solution. WANG also teaches to perform N-k contingency operation analysis for a severe weather event that causes k outages of the power system. However, WANG is not relied on for predicting the outages of the power system based on severe weather event data, wherein the data includes course information and wind speed.
ANAGNOSTOU in an analogous art teaches to use weather forecasts and weather data as a method for outage prediction in a power system such that outages associated with a hurricane/typhoon can be accurately forecasted ([0003] “outage prediction for electrical distribution utilities using high-resolution weather forecasts” [0121] “If the damage before a hurricane could be accurately forecasted, then emergency-preparedness efforts could be vastly improved by deploying restoration crews and supplies ahead of a hurricane's land fall”). ANAGNOSTOU’s method “provides an outage prediction system comprising an electronic processor configured to receive, from a database, dynamic weather data and geographic data from data storage, combine the dynamic weather data with the geographic information to generate a file identifying parameters of a forthcoming weather event” such that the likelihood of a power outage in a particular location can be quantified ([0005]). However, ANAGNOSTOU is not relied on to for wherein the weather data includes course information and wind speed of the typhoon.
PATT in an analogous art teaches to obtain real-time weather data such as wind speed and storm path/course information such that the data can be used to predict a catastrophic weather even, such as a hurricane ([0084] “monitoring services can comprise a weather forecasting service (402) and/or a satellite service (404). Additionally, the computing system 100 can receive additional monitoring data from additional monitoring resources 180, as described above. The computing system 100 then predicts that an event will occur in a given geographic area (405). The event can comprise a catastrophic weather event (407), such as a hurricane” Claim 7 monitoring data includes wind speed, wind direction, storm path).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of PATT and ANAGNOSTOU to the teachings of WANG such that WANG’s device would have been configured to obtain course information and wind speed of a typhoon for the purposes of determining likelihoods of where, geographically, the power outages would occur in the power system, such that the system would determine the best solution for the contingency operations for pre-outage planning and to minimize restoration time for critical loads such as hospitals (Wang, [0002], [0006]).
Regarding claim 13
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. WANG also teaches the system countermeasure candidate data includes any one or more system maintenance countersues of transmission line expansion and substation expansion ([0028]: “takes the reconstructed graph and executes the simulation step 313 using a decision for operating an open switch to a closed state, which connects a load to the expanded bus in the virtual model […] simulation engine 112 performs estimations of bus voltages, feeder cable current flow, and transformer loads for assessment with respect to system constraints, such as for feeder capacity (e.g., current (Ampere) overloading), transformer capacity, and minimum bus voltage (e.g.,0.95 rated voltage). If all constraints are satisfied within a defined tolerance, the simulation engine 112 determines the current reconfiguration attempt to be satisfactory under safety and system stability requirements”, i.e., the device is configured to compensate for changes in bus voltages in response to grid reconfigurations).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT in view of Panteli, M., et al. (“Power System Resilience to Extreme Weather: Fragility Modeling, Probabilistic Impact Assessment, and Adaptation Measures” published on 12/29/2016, retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7801854, retrieved on 9/12/2026, hereinafter – “PANTELI”).
Regarding claim 3
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined. WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT is not relied on to determine a predict a collapse of a transmission tower from based on wind speeds associated with the storm. However, PANTELI in an analogous art teaches to use a fragility function that describes the probability of failure of a structure, such as a transmission tower, based on wind speed, and that the probability of being in or exceeding a damage state is related to a threshold associated with the wind speed. (Section II, subsection B. Tower Fragility Modelling, PANTELI Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
965
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of PANTELI to the teachings of WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT such that the device of WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT would have been configured to use the already obtained heading and wind speed information of the typhoon to quantify the likelihood of the collapse of transmission towers in the power system using the fragility curves of PANTELI such that WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT’s device would determining countermeasure candidates and grid reconfiguration using the fragility curves to identify which towers are likely to collapse based on the threshold for the purposes of determining the best solution for the contingency operations for pre-outage planning and to minimize restoration time for critical loads such as hospitals (Wang, [0002], [0006]).
Claims 5-6 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT in view of OCHOA (US5798939A).
Regarding claim 5
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT is not relied on for wherein the damage cost data is at least one of a power outage cost for each substation. However, OCHOA in an analogous art discloses a computer implemented tool for power system planning, and teaches that the tool “should consider equipment and contingency remedial costs for a complete assessment of system alternatives” (Col. 3, ll. 2-4). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of OCHOA to WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT such that WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT’s device the countermeasure candidates ranking criteria would include a contingency/power outage cost associated with a substation of the power grid for the purpose of boosting the ratepayer’s confidence knowing that the utility supplier is basing their decisions on quantitative data rather than through guesses (ANAGNOSTOU, [0002]).
Regarding claim 6
WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT is not relied on for determining a countermeasure cost and a damage cost expected value. However, OCHOA in an analogous art teaches to determine the cost of grid contingency relief actions and to determine the overall cost of the grid reconfiguration (Fig. 5, S27 and S32). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of OCHOA to the teachings of WANG-ANAGNOSTOU-PATT such that the reliability economy index data would have a weight associated with the cost of each contingency relief action/countermeasure associated and the overall cost of the reconfiguration/damage cost expected value such that reconfigurations rankings would be based in part according to the countermeasures cost and damage cost expected value for the purpose of boosting the ratepayer’s confidence knowing that the utility supplier is basing their decisions on quantitative data rather than through guesses (ANAGNOSTOU, [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights