DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/928,269 filed on October 28, 2024 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); claims 2, 6-9, 11, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 5 and 19 are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 28, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al., US Patent 6,757,628 (hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a method for controlling electrical power output of a generating resource site that includes a plurality of electrical power generating resources, the method comprising “receiving, at a controller, an indication of electrical power characteristics of electrical power flowing through a power interconnect point as measured by a check meter” (Anderson col. 4, ll. 4-13 and Fig. 1) by metering the electricity at meter 14, which indicates the amount of electricity, in the form of voltage and/or current (Anderson col. 5, ll. 34-44), at the meter that should flow through power interconnection point 30. Additionally, Anderson discloses “receiving, at the controller, respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource, where each electrical power generating resource exchanges electrical power through the power interconnect point” (Anderson col. 6, ll. 13-16 and Fig. 1) by metering the electricity with additional meters such as meters 18 and 26 in the same manner. Further, Anderson discloses “determining, by the controller, based on the indication of electrical power characteristics of electrical power flowing through the power interconnect point and the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource: a respective loss value for each respective transmission link system connecting each respective electrical power generating resource in the plurality of electrical power generating resources to the check meter” (Anderson col. 5, ll. 54-60) by calculating the loss value for the transformers and lines associated with each generator. Moreover, Anderson discloses “determining, by the controller, based on the indication of electrical power characteristics of electrical power flowing through the power interconnect point and the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource: … an apportionment of losses among transmission link systems connecting the plurality of electrical power generating resources to the power interconnect point” (Anderson col. 6, ll. 8-24) by calculating the losses for each transformer individually, meaning that it is allocating (i.e., apportionment) those loses to their individual source.
Likewise, Anderson discloses “determining, based on control data defining characteristics of electrical power to be exchanged through the power interconnect point, power adjustments to be made to one or more of the electrical power generating resources based on the apportionment of losses” (Anderson col. 9, ll. 19-24) by determining a compensation level that represents the amount of lost electricity. Finally, Anderson discloses “commanding the one or more of the electrical power generating resources to produce electrical power based on the power adjustments” (Anderson col. 20, ll. 14-18) by using a compensation meter, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is a device that recognizes electricity loss and triggers “compensation” electricity to be generated.
Regarding claim 12, it merely recites a system for performing the method of claim 1. The system comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. Anderson comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, it merely recites a computer program product for performing the method of claim 1. The computer program product comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. Anderson comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson discloses “receiving the control data defining characteristics of electrical power to be exchanged through the power interconnect point, wherein the control data defines characteristics of electrical power to be exchanged through the power interconnect point that differ from the indication of measured electrical power characteristics of power flowing through the power interconnect point, and wherein the determining the power adjustments is based on receiving the control data” (Anderson col. 10, l. 25-col. 20, l. 4). Specifically, Anderson discloses, over several pages, the exact formulas used to calculate the power adjustments. These formulas include a variety of “control data” (that must necessarily have been received in some manner or they would not be possessed) that are different indication of measured electrical power characterizes of the power flowing through the power interconnection point, which is measured in voltage and/or amps. Some of these pieces of control data include KWH (kilowatts per hour), KVARHs (kilovars per hour), I2H (current squared per hour), and V2H (voltage squared per hour), each of which are different than volts and amps.
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 18, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 12, and 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson discloses “receiving a subsequent indication of measured electrical power characteristics for a particular electrical power generating resource within the plurality of electrical power generating resources; and determining that the subsequent indication differs from the respective indication of measured electrical power characteristic for the particular electrical power generating resource, and wherein the determining the power adjustments is performed based on determining that the subsequent indication differs from the respective indication of measured electrical power characteristic for the particular electrical power generating resource indicating a different characteristic.” (Anderson col. 16, ll. 44-62). Specifically, these limitations appear to repeat the process of claim 1 at later point and Anderson discloses that after the compensation level is set it repeats the process with the newly set compensation level to determine if a higher level of compensation is necessary.
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson discloses “wherein receiving the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics comprises receiving the respective indications of electrical power characteristics from a respective group power meter, where each respective group power meter measures electrical power characteristic for a respective associated electrical power generating resource in the plurality of electrical power generating resources” (Anderson col. 9, ll. 33-45) where the data from meter 18 is sent to meter 14 for processing, making meter 18 a group power meter of generator 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wang et al., US Publication 2023/0411961 (hereinafter Wang 961).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics reflect electrical characteristics for the respective electrical power generating resource present within less than four hundred milliseconds (400 mS) prior to receipt by the controller.”
However, Wang 961 discloses a method for monitoring a power plant by measuring electrical power characteristics, “wherein the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics reflect electrical characteristics for the respective electrical power generating resource present within less than four hundred milliseconds (400 mS) prior to receipt by the controller.” (Wang 961 ¶ 108). Specifically, Wang 961 discloses that the measurements are usually received in twenty milliseconds, which is less than four hundred milliseconds.
Anderson and Wang 961 are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods and systems for monitoring power plants.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Wang 961 before him or her to modify the measurement of electrical power characteristics of Anderson to include the usually processing time of twenty milliseconds of Wang 961.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Anderson differs from the claimed invention by failing to specify the amount of time required to receive the electrical characteristics in place of the claimed time limit. Further, Wang 961 teaches that the electrical characteristics of a monitored power plant representing electrical characteristics less than twenty milliseconds was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the twenty millisecond time limit for the unspecified time limit because both are merely time limits.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics reflect electrical characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource present within less than one hundred milliseconds (100 mS) prior to receipt at the controller.”
However, Wang 961 discloses a method for monitoring a power plant by measuring electrical power characteristics, “wherein the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics reflect electrical characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource present within less than one hundred milliseconds (100 mS) prior to receipt at the controller.” (Wang 961 ¶ 108). Specifically, Wang 961 discloses that the measurements are usually received in twenty milliseconds, which is less than one hundred milliseconds.
Anderson and Wang 961 are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods and systems for monitoring power plants.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Wang 961 before him or her to modify the measurement of electrical power characteristics of Anderson to include the usually processing time of twenty milliseconds of Wang 961.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Anderson differs from the claimed invention by failing to specify the amount of time required to receive the electrical characteristics in place of the claimed time limit. Further, Wang 961 teaches that the electrical characteristics of a monitored power plant representing electrical characteristics less than twenty milliseconds was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the twenty millisecond time limit for the unspecified time limit because both are merely time limits.
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson does not appear to explicitly disclose “the indication comprising values of the electrical power characteristics of electrical power flowing through the power interconnect point were measured within less than four hundred milliseconds (400 mS) of receipt at the controller; and determining the respective loss value and the apportionment is performed by the controller within less than twenty milliseconds (20 mS) after receipt of the respective indications of electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource.”
However, Wang 961 discloses a method for monitoring a power plant by measuring electrical power characteristics, “the indication comprising values of the electrical power characteristics of electrical power flowing through the power interconnect point were measured within less than four hundred milliseconds (400 mS) of receipt at the controller; and determining the respective loss value and the apportionment is performed by the controller within less than twenty milliseconds (20 mS) after receipt of the respective indications of electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource.” (Wang 961 ¶ 108). Specifically, Wang 961 discloses that all of the measurements are usually received in twenty milliseconds, which is less than four hundred milliseconds, and that the processing usually takes only two or three milliseconds, which is less than twenty milliseconds.
Anderson and Wang 961 are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods and systems for monitoring power plants.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Wang 961 before him or her to modify the measurement of electrical power characteristics of Anderson to include the usually processing time of twenty milliseconds of Wang 961.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Anderson differs from the claimed invention by failing to specify the amount of time required to receive the electrical characteristics in place of the claimed time limit. Further, Wang 961 teaches that the electrical characteristics of a monitored power plant representing electrical characteristics less than twenty milliseconds was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the twenty millisecond time limit for the unspecified time limit because both are merely time limits.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the indication comprising values of the electrical power characteristics of electrical power flowing through the power interconnect point were measured within less than one hundred milliseconds (100 mS) of receipt at the controller.”
However, Wang 961 discloses a method for monitoring a power plant by measuring electrical power characteristics, “wherein the indication comprising values of the electrical power characteristics of electrical power flowing through the power interconnect point were measured within less than one hundred milliseconds (100 mS) of receipt at the controller.” (Wang 961 ¶ 108). Specifically, Wang 961 discloses that the measurements are usually received in twenty milliseconds to receive, which is less than one hundred milliseconds.
Anderson and Wang 961 are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of methods and systems for monitoring power plants.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Wang 961 before him or her to modify the measurement of electrical power characteristics of Anderson to include the usually processing time of twenty milliseconds of Wang 961.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Anderson differs from the claimed invention by failing to specify the amount of time required to receive the electrical characteristics in place of the claimed time limit. Further, Wang 961 teaches that the electrical characteristics of a monitored power plant representing electrical characteristics less than twenty milliseconds was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the twenty millisecond time limit for the unspecified time limit because both are merely time limits.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of K. Forsten, Distribution System Losses Evaluation, Reduction: Technical and Economic Assessment, December 2008, Electric Power Research Institute, 86 Pages (hereinafter Forsten).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson discloses “wherein determining the apportionment of losses is based on a combination of no-load losses and load losses” (Anderson col. 17, ll. 10-17; col. 18, ll. 4-8) where losses include load losses such as copper loss and no-load losses such as iron loss.
Anderson does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein: the no-load losses are allocated to each respective electrical power generating resource based on a ratio of a respective electrical power generating resource rated power capacity to a total rated power capacity of all the electrical power generating resources within the plurality of electrical power generating resources, and the load losses are allocated to each respective electrical power generating resource based on a ratio of a product of voltage and amperage of each respective electrical power generating resource to a total of products of voltage and amperage of all electrical power generating resources.”
However, Forsten discloses a variety of algorithms for allocating electrical losses “wherein: the no-load losses are allocated to each respective electrical power generating resource based on a ratio of a respective electrical power generating resource rated power capacity to a total rated power capacity of all the electrical power generating resources within the plurality of electrical power generating resources” (Forsten 4-10) where equation 4-13 appears to use this calculation. Additionally, Forsten discloses “the load losses are allocated to each respective electrical power generating resource based on a ratio of a product of voltage and amperage of each respective electrical power generating resource to a total of products of voltage and amperage of all electrical power generating resources” (Forsten 4-10) where equation 4-14 appears to use this calculation.
Anderson and Forsten are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of calculating electric load loss.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Forsten before him or her to modify the electrical loss calculation of Anderson to include the electrical loss calculation of Forsten.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Anderson teaches the “base device” for monitoring power plants and calculating load loss. Further, Forsten teaches the “known technique” of calculating electrical loss that is applicable to the base device of Anderson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Wang et al., US Publication 2025/0233451 (hereinafter Wang 451).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. Although, Anderson discloses a method that receives indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each generating resources, where the group power requests and receives information, and calculates loss values, apportions the losses, and calculates and executes adjustments, as discussed above, it does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the check meter is configured to receive the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource and processing those with a first minimum age time; wherein each respective group power meter is configured to request and receive information from the check meter with a second minimum age time; and wherein the receiving the respective indication of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource, determining the respective loss value for each respective transmission link system, determining the apportionment of losses among transmission link systems, determining power adjustments to be made based on the apportionment of losses, and commanding the one or more generating resources to provide power based on the power adjustments are performed within a sum of the first minimum age time and the second minimum age time.”
However, Wang 451 discloses an energy management system where are power meters calculates electrical characteristics over a specified historical period (Wang 451 ¶¶ 107, 111), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a beginning of the time frame (i.e., a first minimum age time) and ending of the time frame (i.e., a second minimum age time). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Wang 451 was combined with Anderson, these minimum age times of Wang 451 would be used with the calculations of Anderson, specifically for the purposes of enabling long-term strategic planning and preventative maintenance scheduling. (Wang 451 ¶ 86). Therefore, the combination of Anderson and Wang 451 at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “wherein the check meter is configured to receive the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource and processing those with a first minimum age time; wherein each respective group power meter is configured to request and receive information from the check meter with a second minimum age time; and wherein the receiving the respective indication of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource, determining the respective loss value for each respective transmission link system, determining the apportionment of losses among transmission link systems, determining power adjustments to be made based on the apportionment of losses, and commanding the one or more generating resources to provide power based on the power adjustments are performed within a sum of the first minimum age time and the second minimum age time,” rendering them obvious.
Anderson and Wang 451 are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of energy management systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Wang 451 before him or her to modify the monitoring of Anderson to include the historical comparisons of Wang 451.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable long-term strategic planning and preventative maintenance scheduling. (Wang 451 ¶ 86).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Anderson discloses “wherein the power output allocation processor, when operating, is further configured to receive the respective indications of electrical power characteristics from respective group power meters, where each respective group power meter measures electrical power characteristic for a respective associated electrical power generating resource in the plurality of electrical power generating resources” (Anderson col. 9, ll. 33-45) where the data from meter 18 is sent to meter 14 for processing, making meter 18 a group power meter of generator 2.
Although Anderson discloses a method that receives indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each generating resources, where the group power requests and receives information, and calculates loss values, apportions the losses, and calculates and executes adjustments, as discussed above, it does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the check meter is configured to receive the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource and processing those with a first minimum age time; wherein each respective group power meter is configured to request and receive information from the check meter with a second minimum age time; and wherein the power output allocation processor, when operating, is further configured to receive the respective indication of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource, determine the respective loss value for each respective transmission link system, determine the apportionment of losses among transmission link systems, determine power adjustments to be made based on the apportionment of losses, and command the one or more generating resources to provide power based on the power adjustments within a time less than a sum of the first minimum age time and the second minimum age time.”
However, Wang 451 discloses an energy management system where are power meters calculates electrical characteristics over a specified historical period (Wang 451 ¶¶ 107, 111), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a beginning of the time frame (i.e., a first minimum age time) and ending of the time frame (i.e., a second minimum age time). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Wang 451 was combined with Anderson, these minimum age times of Wang 451 would be used with the calculations of Anderson, specifically for the purposes of enabling long-term strategic planning and preventative maintenance scheduling. (Wang 451 ¶ 86). Therefore, the combination of Anderson and Wang 451 at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “wherein the check meter is configured to receive the respective indications of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource and processing those with a first minimum age time; wherein each respective group power meter is configured to request and receive information from the check meter with a second minimum age time; and wherein the power output allocation processor, when operating, is further configured to receive the respective indication of measured electrical power characteristics for each respective electrical power generating resource, determine the respective loss value for each respective transmission link system, determine the apportionment of losses among transmission link systems, determine power adjustments to be made based on the apportionment of losses, and command the one or more generating resources to provide power based on the power adjustments within a time less than a sum of the first minimum age time and the second minimum age time,” rendering them obvious.
Anderson and Wang 451 are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of energy management systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Wang 451 before him or her to modify the monitoring of Anderson to include the historical comparisons of Wang 451.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable long-term strategic planning and preventative maintenance scheduling. (Wang 451 ¶ 86).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although it is known to compute loss by calculating “a sum of all respective squares of electrical current flowing through each electrical power generating resource in the plurality of electrical power generating resources” ( Adnan Anwar, Distributed Generation Planning for Loss and Cost Minimisation in Power Distribution Systems, November 2012, School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales, Pages 40-41, § 3.3, Equation 3.2), neither it nor any other art that the examiner could locate teach the use of this value in a ratio with “a square of electrical current flowing through a particular electrical power generating resource” that is used to apportions losses; particularly in a manner combinable with the cited prior art. Therefore, these claims are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Hanada et al., US Publication 2017/0324268, System and method for monitoring electrical power plants.
Gupta et al., US Publication 2019/0085824, System and method for monitoring electrical power plants.
King et al., US Publication 2022/0121260, System and method for monitoring electrical power plants.
Chang et al., US Publication 2022/0196714, System and method for monitoring electrical power plants.
Cline, Jr. et al., US Publication 2023/0384852, System and method for monitoring electrical power plants.
Srinivasaraghavan et al., US Publication 2023/0419222, System and method for monitoring electrical power plants.
Kanan et al., US Patent 11,804,719, System and method for monitoring electrical power plants.
Adnan Anwar, Distributed Generation Planning for Loss and Cost Minimisation in Power Distribution Systems, November 2012, School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales, Pages 1-14; See Reasons for Allowance above.
Loss Equations Administration of Losses, December 2, 2020, Independent Electricity System Operator, Pages 1-15, Discloses various equations for calculating electrical loss.
Assessment of Transmission and Distribution Losses in New York State, November, 2012, Electric Power Research Institute, 160 Pages, Discloses various methods for monitoring electrical power production sources and calculating the electrical loss of those sources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights