DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12 November 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 12 November 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (i.e. Search Report for PCT/CN2023/121445); (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner’s Note – Claim Objections:
The objections to the claims are too numerous to list; however, several examples have been provided to the Applicant as a sample of the outstanding issues with the claims, as well as, suggested language for several of the examples. The Examiner respectfully asserts these samples are not an all-inclusive list of the outstanding issues with the claims filed on 12 November 2024. In addition, if the Applicant requires further clarification, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview.
The Applicant is respectfully requested to thoroughly assess any subsequent claim amendments for grammatical issues and make the necessary corrections prior to submission to obviate future objections in the interest of advancing prosecution.
Claim Objections
For the purpose of providing examples of outstanding claim objections, claims 1-7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “the following steps” in line 2, “the power outage risk” in lines 8 and 10, “the power grid” in lines 13 and 19, “the power supply” in line 18, and “the operation requirement” in line 18, and “the capacity constraint” in line 19.
Claim 3 recites “the formula” in line 6, 24 and 39, ‘the lead” in line 7, “the probability distribution of the feeder design” in line 29, and “the maximum wind load borne by the damaged line” in line 37.
Claim 4 recites “the intensity of the lightning activity” in lines 7 and 7-8, “the unilateral distance of the line” in line 9, and “the effective area” in line 10.
Claim 5 recites “… the line in the future” in line 6 and “the formula” in line 10.
Claim 6 recites “the calculating an average failure frequency and average failure time” in lines 2-3, “the formula” in line 19, and “the whole period” in line 21.
Claim 7 recites “the stand-by power supply path” in line 4, “the calculated load” in line 13, and “in the case of the emergency” in line 15, “the disaster severity” in line 17, “the operation requirement” in line 24, and “the optimization problem of the available minimum loss cutting load” in lines 30-31.
Claim 1 includes the punctuation issue of “… calculating a device outage probability, and calculating a load power outage probability …” in line 20. Suggest claim language: “… calculating a device outage probability and calculating a load power outage probability …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites “A disaster prevention, early warning and production decision support method for a power distribution network” in line 1 and claims 2-10 recite “The disaster prevention, early warning and production decision support method for a power distribution network” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: The limitation of “The disaster prevention, early warning and production decision support method for a power distribution network” in claims 2-10 should read “he limitation of “The disaster prevention, early warning and production decision support method for the power distribution network” since the limitation has antecedent support; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the punctuation issue of “(or device)” in line 12. Suggested claim language: “or device”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 2 includes the grammatical, antecedent, punctuation issues of “the evaluating a power outage risk of the power distribution network is specifically as follows: …” in lines 2-3. Suggested claim language: “the evaluating of the power outage risk of the power distribution network comprises …” in lines 2-3; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 3 recites the grammatical issue of “… a I type extreme value distribution, a II type extreme value distribution and a III type extreme value distribution …” in lines 18-19. Suggested claim language: “… a first type extreme value distribution, a second type extreme value distribution and a third type extreme value distribution …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 4 recites the antecedent issue of “… the calculating a lightning trip-out rate …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the calculating of the lightning trip-out rate …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 4 includes a box shape in line 6.
Claim 5 recites includes the grammatical and antecedent issues of “… wherein the calculating a maximum carrying capacity at a highest allowable operation temperature is specifically as follows: …” in lines 2-3. Suggested claim language: “… wherein the calculating of the maximum carrying capacity at the highest allowable operation temperature is specifically as follows: …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 5 recites grammatical and punctuation issues of “… the maximum carrying capacity I of the line is as follows:” in line 7-8. Suggested claim language: “… the maximum carrying capacity, I, at the highest allowable operation temperature is specifically is …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 7 includes the punctuation issue of “‘… calculating a difference between power generation and load for the isolated land power grid …’” (i.e. quotes in the claim) in lines 21-22. Suggested claim language: “… calculating a difference between power generation and load for the isolated land power grid …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 10, includes an abbreviation of “GIS” in lines 6 and 14. There is no reference to the definition of the abbreviation in the claim. All abbreviations should be spelled out in the claim to avoid any question of ambiguity. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of “GIS” has been interpreted as geographic information system, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Examiner’s Note – 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections to the Claims:
The following 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections are too numerous to list; however, several examples have been provided to the Applicant as a sample of the outstanding issues with the claims, as well as, suggested language for several of the examples. The Examiner respectfully asserts these samples are not an all-inclusive list of the outstanding issues with the claims filed on 12 November 2024. In addition, if the Applicant requires further clarification, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview.
The Applicant is respectfully requested to thoroughly assess any subsequent claim amendments for indefiniteness issues and make the necessary corrections prior to submission to obviate future rejections in the interest of advancing prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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 following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “the emergency” in lines 3, 7, and 11 and “the coping capacity … on the emergency” in lines 6-7.
Claim 7 recites “in the case of the emergency” in line 16.
Claims 2-7, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 8-10, per dependency from claim 1 (claim 8 recites “… applying the method according to claim 1 …”), stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites “if an isolated land power operates away from a main grid” in lines 14-15 and “if the power grid remains intact” in lines 16-17. The claim is unclear as to the meaning of “operates away from” and “remains intact”; hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-7, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 8-10, per dependency from claim 1 (claim 8 recites “… applying the method according to claim 1 …”), stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the calculating a maximum wind load is specifically as follows: a calculation formula of a line wind load is as follows: …” in lines 3-4. The claim recites a formula and not a step of actual calculating using the formula; hence, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “… μsc is a wire shape coefficient, it is stipulated in GB 50545 that 1.2 is taken when d<17 mm and 1.1 is taken when d>=17 mm” in lines 7-8. The claim is unclear as to how the GB 50545 standard relates to μsc; hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “… the calculating a lightning trip-out rate is specifically as follows: a calculation formula of the lightning trip-out rate is: …” in lines 2-4. The claim recites a formula and not a step of actual calculating using the formula; hence, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the calculating a maximum carrying capacity at a highest allowable operation temperature is specifically as follows: acquiring a meteorological environment parameter prediction value along an overhead line by means of a WRF numerical weather forecasting system; and calculating a dynamic current-carrying value of the line in the future by a lead heat balance equation, wherein a calculation formula of the maximum carrying capacity I of the line is as follows: …” in lines 2-7. The claim recites a formula and not a step of actual calculating using the formula; hence, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the calculating a maximum carrying capacity at a highest allowable operation temperature is specifically as follows: acquiring a meteorological environment parameter prediction value along an overhead line by means of a WRF numerical weather forecasting system; and calculating a dynamic current-carrying value of the line in the future by a lead heat balance equation, wherein a calculation formula of the maximum carrying capacity I of the line is as follows: …” in lines 2-7. The claim is unclear as to how the limitations of “acquiring a meteorological environment parameter prediction value along an overhead line by means of a WRF numerical weather forecasting system” and “calculating a dynamic current-carrying value of the line in the future by a lead heat balance equation” are used in the limitation of “a calculation formula of the maximum carrying capacity I of the line is as follows: …”; hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “… the steps S4-S6 as specifically as follows: …”
in line 2, however, the subsequent limitations incorporate limitations of S4-S6, as well, as, additional limitations which don’t appear to limit the steps S4-S6. Hence, claim 7 is rendered indefinite since the steps of claim 7 (i.e. “update”, “calculating a risk R”, and “solving a load”) recite a different procedure than that of steps S4-S6 in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “if an isolated land power operates away from a main grid” in lines 20-21 and “if the power grid remains intact” in lines 22-23. The claim is unclear as to the meaning of “operates away from” and “remains intact”; hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising of a combination of steps, therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “S2: evaluating a power outage risk of the power distribution network based on the emergency information so as to obtain the coping capacity of the power distribution network on the emergency, and performing disaster loss classification”; “S3: determining whether to enter early warning based on the power outage risk of the power distribution network … and evaluating the power outage risk of the power distribution network if there is no need to enter the early warning”; “S5: analyzing the updated topological structure of the power grid, if an isolated land power grid operates away from a main grid, calculating a difference between power generation and load for the isolated land power grid so as to obtain a power outage load, and if the power grid remains intact, solving a minimum loss cutting load, that is, a load required to be cut to maintain the power supply of a system key load under the condition of meeting the operation requirement of the power grid and the capacity constraint of the device”; and “S6: calculating a device outage probability, and calculating a load power outage probability and a power outage risk based on a power outage load and the device outage probability”.
The limitation of “S2: evaluating a power outage risk of the power distribution network based on the emergency information so as to obtain the coping capacity of the power distribution network on the emergency …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0067]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “S2: … performing disaster loss classification”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classification” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to group information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “S3: determining whether to enter early warning based on the power outage risk of the power distribution network …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “S3: … evaluating the power outage risk of the power distribution network if there is no need to enter the early warning”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “evaluating” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “S5: analyzing the updated topological structure of the power grid, if an isolated land power grid operates away from a main grid …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “S5: … calculating a difference between power generation and load for the isolated land power grid so as to obtain a power outage load” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0067]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “S5: … if the power grid remains intact, solving a minimum loss cutting load, that is, a load required to be cut to maintain the power supply of a system key load under the condition of meeting the operation requirement of the power grid and the capacity constraint of the device” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0063]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a power distribution network”; “S1: collecting potential emergency information, wherein the emergency comprises typhoon, lightning, high temperature and severe environmental information”; “S3: … continuously collecting the potential emergency information and … implementing an early warning measure if entering the early warning”; and “S4: after the emergency, stopping the device, and starting a stand-by power supply path (or device) that is startable after the device is stopped and designed in an emergency management plan so as to update a topological structure of the power grid”.
The limitations “a power distribution network”, “the device”, “a stand-by power supply path (or device)”, “the power grid”, and “an isolated land power grid” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “S1: collecting potential emergency information, wherein the emergency comprises typhoon, lightning, high temperature and severe environmental information” and “S3: … continuously collecting the potential emergency information” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “collecting” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “S3: … implementing an early warning measure if entering the early warning” and “S4: after the emergency, stopping the device, and starting a stand-by power supply path (or device) that is startable after the device is stopped and designed in an emergency management plan so as to update a topological structure of the power grid” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “a power distribution network”, “the device”, “a stand-by power supply path (or device)”, “the power grid”, and “an isolated land power grid” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “S1: collecting potential emergency information, wherein the emergency comprises typhoon, lightning, high temperature and severe environmental information” and “S3: … continuously collecting the potential emergency information”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “S3: … implementing an early warning measure if entering the early warning” and “S4: after the emergency, stopping the device, and starting a stand-by power supply path (or device) that is startable after the device is stopped and designed in an emergency management plan so as to update a topological structure of the power grid” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the evaluating a power outage risk of the power distribution network is specifically as follows: calculating a maximum wind load, a lightning trip-out rate, a maximum carrying capacity at a highest allowable operation temperature, and an average failure frequency and average failure time under a considered environmental factor”.
The limitation of “… the evaluating a power outage risk of the power distribution network is specifically as follows: calculating a maximum wind load, a lightning trip-out rate, a maximum carrying capacity at a highest allowable operation temperature, and an average failure frequency and average failure time under a considered environmental factor” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pgs. 2-3, par. [0015], [0016], [0027], [0028] [0031]-[0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the calculating a maximum wind load …”; “performing probability distribution fitting by a generalized extreme value distribution, wherein the generalized extreme value distribution is divided into a I type extreme value distribution, a II type extreme value distribution and a III type extreme value distribution, and a generalized extreme value distribution function expression obtained by generalizing three different types of extreme value distributions …”; and “calculating a fault probability of an overhead feeder by a stress-strength interference area method, wherein the probability distribution of the feeder design wind load is a normal distribution …”
The limitation of “… the calculating a maximum wind load …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0068] and [0069]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “performing probability distribution fitting by a generalized extreme value distribution, wherein the generalized extreme value distribution is divided into a I type extreme value distribution, a II type extreme value distribution and a III type extreme value distribution, and a generalized extreme value distribution function expression obtained by generalizing three different types of extreme value distributions …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0070] and [0071]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “calculating a fault probability of an overhead feeder by a stress-strength interference area method, wherein the probability distribution of the feeder design wind load is a normal distribution …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 6, par. [0081]-[0084]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the calculating a lightning trip-out rate …”.
The limitation of “… the calculating a lightning trip-out rate …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 6, par. [0086] and [0087]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculating a dynamic current-carrying value of the line in the future by a lead heat balance equation, wherein a calculation formula of the maximum carrying capacity I of the line …”.
The limitation of “… calculating a dynamic current-carrying value of the line in the future by a lead heat balance equation, wherein a calculation formula of the maximum carrying capacity I of the line …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 7, par. [0094] and [0095]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “acquiring a meteorological environment parameter prediction value along an overhead line by means of a WRF numerical weather forecasting system”.
The limitation of “acquiring a meteorological environment parameter prediction value along an overhead line by means of a WRF numerical weather forecasting system” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “collecting” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “acquiring a meteorological environment parameter prediction value along an overhead line by means of a WRF numerical weather forecasting system”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the calculating an average failure frequency and average failure time under a considered environmental factor…”.
The limitation of “… the calculating an average failure frequency and average failure time under a considered environmental factor …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 8, par. [0100] and [0101]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7:
The limitations of “… stopping the device, starting the stand-by power supply path (or device) that is startable after the device is stopped and designed in an emergency management plan so as to update the topological structure of the power grid, analyzing the updated topological structure of the power grid, if an isolated land power grid operates away from a main grid, calculating the difference between power generation and the load for the isolated land power grid so as to obtain the power outage load, if the power grid remains intact, calculating the optimization problem of the minimum loss cutting load, solving the minimum loss cutting load required to be cut to maintain the power supply of a system key load under the condition of meeting the operation requirement of the power grid and the capacity constraint of the device …” were similarly recited in claim 1; and stand rejected for the same rational as set forth in claim 1.
Further, at step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… updating a non-power-outage probability of the calculated load required to be cut until traversing all affected device set, then calculating a power outage probability of each load, and finally calculating a power outage risk of an urban power distribution network in the case of the emergency”;
“calculating a risk R …”; and “analyzing the updated topological structure of the power grid, if an isolated land power grid operates away from a main grid, ‘calculating a difference between power generation and load for the isolated land power grid’ so as to obtain a power outage load, and if the power grid remains intact, solving a load required to be cut to maintain the power supply of a system key load under the condition of meeting the operation requirement of the power grid and the capacity constraint of the device by using the optimization problem of the available minimum loss cutting load, wherein a target function of the minimum loss cutting load problem …”.
The limitation of “… updating a non-power-outage probability of the calculated load required to be cut until traversing all affected device set …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0036]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “… then calculating a power outage probability of each load, and finally calculating a power outage risk of an urban power distribution network in the case of the emergency …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0036]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “… finally calculating a power outage risk of an urban power distribution network in the case of the emergency …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0036]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “… “calculating a risk R …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0037] and [0038]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “analyzing the updated topological structure of the power grid, if an isolated land power grid operates away from a main grid …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to group information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “… ‘calculating a difference between power generation and load for the isolated land power grid’ so as to obtain a power outage load, and if the power grid remains intact, solving a load required to be cut to maintain the power supply of a system key load under the condition of meeting the operation requirement of the power grid and the capacity constraint of the device by using the optimization problem of the available minimum loss cutting load, wherein a target function of the minimum loss cutting load problem …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0070594 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0039]-[0042]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 represents an equivalent system claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1, per incorporation of the method of claim 1 into claim 8.
Further, at step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a multivariate data access module, an external public data module, a data fusion module and a display module, wherein the multivariate data access module is configured to access meteorological data, typhoon data, and lightning and mountain fire data; the external public data module is configured to store public early warning data; the data fusion module is configured to process various acquired data and applying model analysis to obtain a result; and the display module is configured to interact with a client, and display various original data acquired by the multivariate data access module, result data produced in the data fusion module and data stored in the external public data module to the client”.
The limitations of “a multivariate data access module, an external public data module, a data fusion module and a display module”; “the data fusion module is configured to process various acquired data and applying model analysis …”; and “the display module is configured to interact with a client …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “… access meteorological data, typhoon data, and lightning and mountain fire data …”; “…. store public early warning data; and “… obtain a result” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “access”, “store” and “obtain” are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… display various original data acquired by the multivariate data access module, result data produced in the data fusion module and data stored in the external public data module to the client” represents mere data output of information. The limitations of “display” is recited at a high level of generally and so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a multivariate data access module, an external public data module, a data fusion module and a display module”; “the data fusion module is configured to process various acquired data and applying model analysis …”; and “the display module is configured to interact with a client …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “… access meteorological data, typhoon data, and lightning and mountain fire data …”; “…. store public early warning data; and “… obtain a result”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… display various original data acquired by the multivariate data access module, result data produced in the data fusion module and data stored in the external public data module to the client”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
The limitations of claim 9 further detail the limitations of “… meteorological data, typhoon data, and lightning and mountain fire data …” and “… public early warning data …” in claim 8; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 8.
Claim 10:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… a service domain data module, wherein the service domain data module comprises a production domain module, a dispatching automation module, a marketing domain module, a power distribution automation module, a customer service module, a measurement automation module and a GIS module; a device ledger, a fault, a defect, a plan and power outage data are stored in the production domain module; an on-off action, a fault type and fault time are stored in the dispatching automation module; a customer ledger, a distribution transform ledger and power outage data are stored in the marketing domain module; an on-off action, a fault type and fault time are stored in the power distribution automation module; a geographic position, a distribution network topology and a risk hidden danger point are stored in the customer service module; a customer ledger, a distribution transform ledger and power outage data are stored in the measurement automation module; and the GIS module is provided with a GIS topology, a multi-functional layer, waterlogging and water leaching label and a distribution network line pole and tower dotting service”.
The limitations of “… a service domain data module, wherein the service domain data module comprises a production domain module, a dispatching automation module, a marketing domain module, a power distribution automation module, a customer service module, a measurement automation module and a GIS module …”; and “… the GIS module is provided with a GIS topology, a multi-functional layer, waterlogging and water leaching label and a distribution network line pole and tower dotting service” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “… a device ledger, a fault, a defect, a plan and power outage data are stored …”; “an on-off action, a fault type and fault time are stored …”; “a customer ledger, a distribution transform ledger and power outage data are stored …”; “an on-off action, a fault type and fault time are stored …”; “a geographic position, a distribution network topology and a risk hidden danger point are stored …”; and “a customer ledger, a distribution transform ledger and power outage data are stored …” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “stored” are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… a service domain data module, wherein the service domain data module comprises a production domain module, a dispatching automation module, a marketing domain module, a power distribution automation module, a customer service module, a measurement automation module and a GIS module …”; and “… the GIS module is provided with a GIS topology, a multi-functional layer, waterlogging and water leaching label and a distribution network line pole and tower dotting service” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “… a device ledger, a fault, a defect, a plan and power outage data are stored …”; “an on-off action, a fault type and fault time are stored …”; “a customer ledger, a distribution transform ledger and power outage data are stored …”; “an on-off action, a fault type and fault time are stored …”; “a geographic position, a distribution network topology and a risk hidden danger point are stored …”; and “a customer ledger, a distribution transform ledger and power outage data are stored …”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to power grids, notification systems, and disaster prevention systems
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0327908 A1 discloses systems and methods for analyzing alarms to address an electrical system’s issues
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0394950 A1 discloses systems and methods related to managing smart alarms in an electrical or power system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0322570 A1 discloses preemptively charging rechargeable energy storage systems (RESSs) with electrical power from an electrical grid in advance of a storm or a natural disaster.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0067590 A1 discloses a flooding water level monitoring method and system for power facilities.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0392159 A1 discloses systems and methods are directed to increasing a reliability and resilience of power grids, solar farms, and other energy sources, by predicting fault events before they occur and taking preventive action, thus avoiding system down time.
U.S. Patent No. 7,783,673 discloses system detecting emerging risks in various systems and relating a detected risk to its relative impact on a system or product.
U.S. Patent No. 9,196,145 discloses a forecast system and method for automated location dependent natural disaster impact forecasts includes located gauging stations to measure natural disaster events.
U.S. Patent No. 12,695,316 B2 discloses a power storage system that suppresses a control unit (control device) of a power storage system from becoming inoperable when a power storage device is opened.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
