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 .
Status of the Application
Claim 1-10 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 12/12/24 are objected to because the text is on shaded portions of the drawing, proving difficult to read. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that text should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 2-5 recites the limitation "the operation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: "The method" is ambiguous as to the metes and bounds of the limitation. In particular, is “The method” the same or different from “An inter-turn protection method”? Applicant is advised that the terminology should be clarified to remove the ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2-5 should read as “The inter-turn protection method” instead of “The method”.
7. Claims 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: "The System" is ambiguous as to the metes and bounds of the limitation. In particular, is “The system” the same or different from “An inter-turn protection system”? Applicant is advised that the terminology should be clarified to remove the ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7-10 should read as “The inter-turn protection system” instead of “The system”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
10. Regarding Independent claim 1, and 6:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 1 is drawn to an inter-turn protection method and claim 6 is drawn to an inter-turn protection system system for a converter transformer, therefore claim 1, and 6 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Independent claim 1, and 6 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, and 6 recites claim limitation of “respectively calculating three-phase differential currents idiff(taj) of the converter transformer.……..; and respectively calculating three-phase differential currents idiff(tgj) of the converter transformer at the moment tgj according to the three-phase currents iopri(tgj) of the grid side and the three-phase currents ipva(tgj) of the valve side; respectively calculating fundamental effective values Idiff(taj) and second harmonic effective values Idiff2(taj) of the three-phase differential currents idiff(taj) of the converter transformer; respectively calculating fundamental phasors A/diffr±(taj) of positive and negative sequence component sums Aidiffr±(taj) of three-phase differential current variations Aidirff(taj) of the converter transformer” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mathematical concept.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 1, and 6 further recites limitation of “determining first criterion results of the three phases according to the fundamental effective values Idiff(taj) of the three-phase differential currents idiffr(taj) and a differential protection criterion which is preset; determining second criterion results of the three phases according to the fundamental effective values /diff(taj) and the second harmonic effective values /airf2(taj) of the three-phase differential currents iiff(taj) and a second harmonic blocking criterion which is preset; determining third criterion results of the three phases……; and determining fourth criterion results of the three phases according to the fundamental phasors” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform the claimed different determining functions as discussed above. Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Hence claim 1 and 6 are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 1, and 6 recites additional limitation of “acquiring three-phase currents iopri(taj) of a grid side of a converter transformer at a moment taj and three-phase currents iva(taj) of a valve side of the converter transformer at the moment…..”. The claimed function of acquiring data is forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that acquiring of data is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6 further recite additional limitation of "a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor", are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.95(f)).
The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A of acquiring of data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data receiving (i.e., acquiring, and collecting) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As such, claim 1, and 6 are not patent eligible.
11. Dependent claims 2-5, and 9-10:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 2-5 are drawn to a method, and claim 9-10 is drawn to a system, therefore claim 2-5, and 9-10 are falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Dependent claim 2-5, and 7-10 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 and 7 recites claim limitation of “calculation formulas of the three-phase differential currents idiff(taj) and idiff(tgj) are respectively formula (1) and formula (2)…………..”;
Claim 3, and 8 recites limitation of “a calculation formula of the three-phase differential current variations Aidffr(taj) being formula (3)…; a calculation formula of the zero- sequence component Adiffo(taj) being formula (4)…..; a calculation formula of the positive and negative sequence component sums Aidiff±(taj) being formula (5)…; and respectively calculating the fundamental phasors A/diffe±(taj) of the positive and negative sequence component sums… ”;
Claim 4, and 9 recites limitation with different formulas used for the calculation “a formula of the differential protection criterion is formula (6)…; a formula of the second harmonic blocking criterion is formula (7); a formula of the waveform identification open criterion is formula (8) ”; formulas of the sequence differential current open criterion are formula (9) and formula (10).
The above all limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, includes mathematical formulas and calculation function and hence enumerates a mathematical concept.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by a mathematical algorithm (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 5 and 10 further recites limitation of “in case that the first criterion result of a phase among the three phases is that the differential protection criterion is satisfied, and the second criterion result of the phase is that the second harmonic blocking criterion is not satisfied, determining an inter-turn protection action outlet of the phase; or in case that the first criterion result of a phase among the three phases is that the differential protection criterion is satisfied, the second criterion result of the phase is that the second harmonic blocking criterion is satisfied, the third criterion result of the phase is that the waveform identification open criterion is satisfied, and the fourth criterion result of the phase is that the sequence differential current open criterion is satisfied, determining an inter-turn protection action outlet of the phase” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform the claimed different determining functions as discussed above. Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Hence claim 1 and 6 are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 2-5 does not recite additional limitation, while claim 7-10 recites additional limitation including “the processor”. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Even considered in combination, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer with a memory and processor recited at a high level of generality is not a practical application of abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As such, dependent claim 2-5, and 7-10 are not patent eligible.
Pertinent Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest cited prior art Cao (CN112034396A) disclose an inter-turn fault protection method of a series transformer using voltage and current. Wherein, the method includes: determining the first starting criterion, the second starting criterion, the current auxiliary criterion, the longitudinal zero-sequence impedance criterion, the voltage auxiliary criterion, the harmonic Ratio criterion, first balance winding circulating current criterion, second balance winding circulating current criterion, zero-sequence current ratio criterion and zero-sequence voltage ratio criterion; determine the logical relationship of the inter-turn fault identification criterion; determine the network valve side fault The logical relationship of the positioning criterion; and according to the logical relationship of the inter-turn fault identification and the logical relationship of the network valve side fault location, the type of the inter-turn fault of the series transformer is determined, and after the type of the inter-turn fault of the series transformer is determined, the series transformer is determined. Turn-to-turn fault protection operates reliably, among which the types of turn-to-turn faults of series transformers are divided into grid-side turn-to-turn faults and valve-side turn-to-turn faults (Abstract).
Zhao (Pub: 2011/0267072) disclose technical scheme of the improved detector using voltage differential to detect transformer interturn short circuit of the present invention is as follows. An improved detector of transformer interturn short circuit using voltage differential, comprising a single-phase transformer (TM) in a single-phase high voltage power supply circuit. The single-phase transformer (TM) comprises a high voltage winding (K) and a low voltage winding (N). A potential transformer (PT) is provided on the high voltage side of the single-phase transformer (TM). A high voltage is drawn/taken from the tap (K1) of the high voltage winding (K). The tap (K1) of the high voltage winding (K) is connected to the input end of a first converter (Q') and the voltage at output end of said first converter (Q') is the first voltage (U1'). A second voltage is drawn from the secondary output side of the potential transformer (PT) that is connected to the input end of a second converter (Q). Both output ends of the first converter (Q') and the second converter (Q) are connected to a module to distinguish interturn short circuit at the first output side. The first voltage (U1') and the second voltage (U1) are compared in the said module. When the voltage differential is larger than a preset first threshold value, an interturn short circuit at first output side can be determined (Para. [0006]).
Gajic (Pub: 2008/0130179) disclose a method and a device for improved protection of power transformers, autotransformers or power lines from the effects of internal faults by using an advanced differential protection system (Para. [0001]).
Kulidjian (Patent: 6483680) disclose a fault protection of power transformers, and more specifically, to providing appropriate restraint for the main differential protection function during magnetizing inrush conditions (Col. 1, Ln. 9-12).
Ha (Pub: 2020/0408826) disclose a system or apparatus for locating a fault in one or more windings of a transformer is provided. The system or apparatus may include a measurement device configured to measure electrical flow parameters of the transformer when the transformer is in an online mode. In various embodiments, the system or apparatus may also include a fault location determination unit configured to determine electrical flow parameters of the one or more windings of the transformer based at least on the measured electrical flow parameters of the transformer, wherein the fault location determination unit is further configured to determine a location of the fault in the one or more windings based at least on the determined electrical flow parameters (Para. [0011]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The claim 1-10 are allowable once the outstanding rejection 35 U.S.C 112(b), 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection, and claim objection are overcome as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 M. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights