DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-10 filed on 11/20/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on Application No. CN202311553499.4 filed on 11/20/2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 09/02/2026 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/20/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 11/20/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, “difficult to be solved by existing commercial solvers” should read “difficult to solve by existing commercial solvers” and “equation (29), and equation (31) is an MILP problem” should read “equation (29), and equation (31) is a MILP problem”
In claim 8, “it shall satisfies equation (32)” should read “it shall satisfy equation (32)” and “it shall satisfies equation (34)” should read “it shall satisfy equation (34)”
In claim 10, “a processing module, configured to, formulate strategies of the urban power system based on the safety margin, comprises at least one of” should read “a processing module, configured to formulate strategies of the urban power system based on the safety margin, comprising at least one of”
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Claims 2-4 detail specific formulas to calculate a dynamic safety margin of an urban power system, which are not found in the prior art cited or any other prior art that was found.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a constructing module in claim 10
a solving module in claim 10
a predicting module in claim 10
a processing module in claim 10
However, for each of the modules being claimed, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “removing the non-resilience region from outside to quickly obtain the dynamic resilience region.” The term “quickly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quickly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, “to quickly obtain the dynamic resilience region” will be interpreted as “to obtain the dynamic resilience region.”
Claim 1 also recites, “in scenarios where the safety margin of nodes where the critical loads are located is low before a disaster.” The term “low” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets this to mean the safety margin is below a particular threshold.
Claims 6 and 10 recite limitations corresponding to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claims and are rejected for the same reasons as outlined above.
Claim 8 recites, “firstly, defining a large enough optimization space Φ.” The term “large enough” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large enough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, “defining a large enough optimization space Φ” will be interpreted as “defining an optimization space Φ.”
Regarding claim 10, claim limitations “a constructing module”, “a solving module”, “a predicting module”, and “a processing module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed corresponding functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the corresponding functions.
The corresponding structure for the means-plus-function limitations must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function that is sufficient to transform a general-purpose computer to a special purpose computer. The instant specification appears to provide a description of an algorithm, but there is no mention of a computer or microprocessor programmed with the algorithm. MPEP 2181 (“However, if there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (i.e., the limitation is only supported by software and does not correspond to an algorithm and the computer or microprocessor programmed with the algorithm), the limitation should be deemed indefinite as discussed above, and the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).”)
The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which computer structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions performed by a constructing module, a solving module, a predicting module, and a processing module as recited in claim 10. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiyi Wang et al. (US 2024/0275167 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (“On the coordination of transmission-distribution grids: A dynamic feasible region method.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38.2 (2022): 1857-1868), and in view of Chen et al. (“Steady‐state security assessment method based on distance to security region boundaries.” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution 7.3 (2013): 288-297).
Regarding claim 1, Saiyi Wang teaches a fast calculation method for a dynamic resilience region of an urban power system, comprising:
constructing an urban power system three-stage model applicable for multiple types of public safety events by considering security constraints before, during, and after a disaster, to minimize a three-stage operation cost and a load shedding amount of urban power grid ([0005]: “ the objective function includes a first sub-objective function and a second sub-objective function, the first sub-objective function aims to minimize an investment cost at an outer level, and the second sub-objective function first aims to maximize a load shedding (LS) cost and a post-disaster operation cost at a middle level, and then minimize an LS cost and a post-disaster operation cost at an inner level”; [0023]: “variable sets of tri-level decision-making respectively; CINV represents an investment cost; COPE and CLS represent the post-disaster operation cost and the LS cost respectively”);
wherein formulating strategies of the urban power system based on the safety margin, comprises at least one of:
or,
adjusting an active output of generating sets of the urban power system, the active output of distributed resources of the urban power system, and the load shedding amount of the nodes of the urban power system so that critical nodes of the urban power system are operated in a position with a highest safety margin to avoid overloads during a disaster ([0005]: “the second sub-objective function first aims to maximize a load shedding (LS) cost and a post-disaster operation cost at a middle level… determining a power output cg G of a DG”; [0101]: “a dispatching operation strategy of the AC distribution network disconnected from the main network and a disaster response strategy during the failure are determined at the inner level”).
Saiyi Wang does not explicitly teach “based on the urban power system three-stage model, defining a boundary between a resilience region and a non-resilience region as a resilience cut line, and removing the non-resilience region from outside to quickly obtain the dynamic resilience region.”
Zhang further teaches based on the urban power system three-stage model, defining a boundary between a resilience region and a non-resilience region as a resilience cut line, and removing the non-resilience region from outside to quickly obtain the dynamic resilience region (Page 1860, Section II: “the concept of DFR is proposed in this paper to describe the feasible hyperplane formed by the aggregation of spatio-temporal coupled DERs in a distribution system”; Page 1861, Section IV: “an outer progressive approximation algorithm is introduced to efficiently and quickly segment the feasible and infeasible region even in high dimensions… Repeat the above steps, iteratively cut out the infeasible space until D = ΦDFR”).
Saiyi Wang and Zhang do not explicitly teach “based on the urban power system three-stage model, using a shortest distance from a current operating point to the boundary of the dynamic resilience region to represent a dynamic safety margin of the urban power system under a current disaster prediction scenario.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Saiyi Wang to incorporate the teachings of Zhang so as to include based on the urban power system three-stage model, using a shortest distance from a current operating point to the boundary of the dynamic resilience region to represent a dynamic safety margin of the urban power system under a current disaster prediction scenario. Doing so would allow feasible resilient operation to be separated from non-feasible operation with the aim of quickly obtaining a dynamic region for scheduling (Zhang, Page 1858, Section I: “In contrast to the existing projection methods, e.g., iteratively searching for vertices, we theoretically derive the polyhedral form of a projection-based feasible region, which can be characterized as a constraint set formed by the extreme points of the dual space of the proposed LPCC. A novel outer progressive approximation (OPA)-based method is designed to effectively add feasibility cut until coincidence is achieved.”
Chen further teaches based on the urban power system three-stage model, using a shortest distance from a current operating point to the boundary of the dynamic resilience region to represent a dynamic safety margin of the urban power system under a current disaster prediction scenario (Page 289, Section 1: “we introduce the concept of ‘distance’ to quantitatively describe steady-state security margins of power system operation… SSD could reflect the security margin from a specific operation point to any boundary of the SSR”; Page 291, Section 3: “the concept of SSD is defined as ‘distance’ from a specific operation point to different boundaries”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Wang in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Chen so as to include based on the urban power system three-stage model, using a shortest distance from a current operating point to the boundary of the dynamic resilience region to represent a dynamic safety margin of the urban power system under a current disaster prediction scenario. Doing so would allow a global view on safety margins with the aim of reduced computational complexity (Chen, Page 296, Section 7: “As SSD reflects security margin from a specific operation point to any boundary of the SSR, it provides the system operators a global view on overall security margins of power system operation. SSD could be a useful tool which enhances the system operators’ ability in maintaining system security. With the SSD, the system operators could recognise the critical uncertainties affecting system security and their impacts on security margins, and identify the most fragile components within the systems. A novel algorithm is proposed to enhance the computational efficiency of SSD”).
Regarding claim 6, Saiyi Wang in view of Zhang and Chen teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhang further teaches, wherein based on the urban power system three-stage model, defining the boundary between the resilience region and the non-resilience region as the resilience cut line, and removing the non-resilience region from the outside to quickly obtain the dynamic resilience region, comprise:
deducing a mathematical representation of dynamic resilience region (Page 1859, Section I: “To fill the aforementioned gaps, the concept of dynamic feasible region (DFR) is proposed in this paper”; Page 1861, Section IV: “the polyhedral form of DFR can be derived φDFR = {x |zT Ax ≥ zT b ∀z ∈ vertices(Z)} (6)”); and
solving the dynamic resilience region based on the resilience cut line (Page 1861, Section IV: “The idea of outer progressive approximation based on feasible cuts is: Firstly, initialize a large enough space D; Then, check whether inequality (7) holds for ∀x ∈ D; if so, find x’ /∈ ΦDFR and z’ ∈ Z; Finally, generate feasible cuts according to (8) and update the space D. Repeat the above steps, iteratively cut out the infeasible space until D = ΦDFR”).
Regarding claim 8, Saiyi Wang in view of Zhang and Chen teaches the method of claim 6.
Zhang further teaches wherein solving the dynamic resilience region based on the resilience cut line, comprises:
when
θ
=
θ
0
, if
θ
0
is in the dynamic resilience region, it shall satisfies equation (32):
PNG
media_image1.png
25
117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(33) (Page 1861, Section III: “when f(x) = 0, the following inequality holds
z
T
(
b
-
A
x
0
)
≤
0
When x is a variable, the variation of x causes the change of the optimal solution z’, and z’ is one of the vertices in the space
Z
=
{
z
|
B
T
z
=
0
,
-
1
≤
z
≤
0
}
”)
in the equation,
d
*
is an optimal solution of equation (31), and
d
*
is a vertex of dual space
-
1
≤
d
≤
0
,
B
T
d
=
0
, and thus the dynamic resilience region can be described as (33):
PNG
media_image2.png
25
213
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(34) (Page 1861, Section III: “Therefore, the polyhedral form of DFR can be derived
ϕ
D
F
R
=
{
x
|
z
T
A
x
≥
z
T
b
∀
z
∈
v
e
r
t
i
c
e
s
(
Z
)
”)in the equation, D is a set of vertices of the dual space, and if θ is outside the dynamic resilience region, it shall satisfies the equation (34):
PNG
media_image3.png
25
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(35) (Page 1861, Section IV: “Conversely, if
x
'
∉
Φ
D
F
R
, the following inequality holds:
∃
z
'
∈
Z
z
T
A
x
'
<
z
T
b
)
equation (36) defines a hyper-plane that separates the dynamic resilience region and a non-dynamic resilience region, which can be defined as a resilience cut line:
PNG
media_image4.png
21
85
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(36) (Page 1861, Section IV: “for
x
'
∈
Φ
D
F
R
“the following hyperplane strictly separates the feasible and non-feasible regions, which is called feasible cut
z
'
T
A
x
=
z
'
T
b
)
wherein a solution process of the dynamic resilience region is as follows: firstly, defining a large enough optimization space
Φ
; solving equation (31), if R(θ)=0, it indicates that a current optimization space is an accurate dynamic resilience region, if R(θ) is not 0, it indicates that the non-dynamic resilience region in the current optimization space still needs to be removed; and calculating equation (36) to obtain a resilience cut line, and add the constraint
d
*
T
A
θ
≤
d
*
T
c
corresponding to the cut line to the
Φ
to obtain an updated optimization space until R(θ)=0 (Page 1861, Section IV: “The idea of outer progressive approximation based on feasible cuts is: Firstly, initialize a large enough space D; Then, check whether inequality (7) holds for ∀x ∈ D; if so, find
x
'
∉
Φ
D
F
R
and
z
'
∈
Z
; Finally, generate feasible cuts according to (8) and update the space D. Repeat the above steps, iteratively cut out the infeasible space until
D
=
Φ
D
F
R
, the specific steps will be introduced in the next subsection”).
Regarding claim 10, Saiyi Wang teaches a fast calculation device for a dynamic resilience region of an urban power system, comprising:
a constructing module, configured to construct an urban power system three-stage model applicable for multiple types of public safety events by considering security constraints before, during, and after a disaster, to minimize a three-stage operation cost and a load shedding amount of an urban power grid ([0005]: “ the objective function includes a first sub-objective function and a second sub-objective function, the first sub-objective function aims to minimize an investment cost at an outer level, and the second sub-objective function first aims to maximize a load shedding (LS) cost and a post-disaster operation cost at a middle level, and then minimize an LS cost and a post-disaster operation cost at an inner level”; [0023]: “variable sets of tri-level decision-making respectively; CINV represents an investment cost; COPE and CLS represent the post-disaster operation cost and the LS cost respectively”);
a processing module, configured to, formulate strategies of the urban power system based on the safety margin, comprises at least one of: or,
adjust an active output of generating sets of the urban power system, the active output of distributed resources of the urban power system, and the load shedding amount of the nodes of the urban power system so that critical nodes of the urban power system are operated in a position with a highest safety margin to avoid overloads during a disaster ([0005]: “the second sub-objective function first aims to maximize a load shedding (LS) cost and a post-disaster operation cost at a middle level… determining a power output cg G of a DG”; [0101]: “a dispatching operation strategy of the AC distribution network disconnected from the main network and a disaster response strategy during the failure are determined at the inner level”).
Saiyi Wang does not explicitly teach “a solving module, configured to, based on the urban power system three-stage model, define a boundary between a resilience region and a non-resilience region as a resilience cut line, and remove the non-resilience region from outside to quickly obtain the dynamic resilience region.”
Zhang further teaches a solving module, configured to, based on the urban power system three-stage model, define a boundary between a resilience region and a non-resilience region as a resilience cut line, and remove the non-resilience region from outside to quickly obtain the dynamic resilience region (Page 1860, Section II: “the concept of DFR is proposed in this paper to describe the feasible hyperplane formed by the aggregation of spatio-temporal coupled DERs in a distribution system”; Page 1861, Section IV: “an outer progressive approximation algorithm is introduced to efficiently and quickly segment the feasible and infeasible region even in high dimensions… Repeat the above steps, iteratively cut out the infeasible space until D = ΦDFR”).
The reasons to combine Zhang with Saiyi Wang are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Saiyi Wang and Zhang do not explicitly teach “a predicting module, configured to, based on the urban power system three-stage model, use a shortest distance from a current operating point to the boundary of the dynamic resilience region to represent a dynamic safety margin of the urban power system under a current disaster prediction scenario.”
Chen further teaches a predicting module, configured to, based on the urban power system three-stage model, use a shortest distance from a current operating point to the boundary of the dynamic resilience region to represent a dynamic safety margin of the urban power system under a current disaster prediction scenario (Page 289, Section 1: “we introduce the concept of ‘distance’ to quantitatively describe steady-state security margins of power system operation… SSD could reflect the security margin from a specific operation point to any boundary of the SSR”; Page 291, Section 3: “the concept of SSD is defined as ‘distance’ from a specific operation point to different boundaries”).
The reasons to combine Chen with Saiyi Wang and Zhang are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiyi Wang et al. (US 2024/0275167 A1), in view of Zhang, in view of Chen, and in view of Ding et al. (“Power system resilience enhancement in typhoons using a three-stage day-ahead unit commitment.” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 12.3 (2020): 2153-2164).
Regarding claim 5, Saiyi Wang in view of Zhang and Chen teaches the method of claim 1.
Ding further teaches wherein considering the security constraints before, during, and after the disaster, comprises:
after the disaster, considering resources needed to be repaired and generating set recovery model constraints:
PNG
media_image5.png
27
197
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(20)
PNG
media_image6.png
39
132
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(21)
where
l
i
j
,
t
r
e
indicates whether a line ij starts to be repaired at a time t, and if the line ij starts to be repaired at the time t,
l
i
j
,
t
r
e
=
1
, otherwise,
l
i
j
,
t
r
e
=
0
(Page 2157, Section II: “
z
l
,
s
,
t
is the line l repair state at time t for s-th path.
z
l
,
s
,
t
=
1
if line l is being repaired; otherwise,
z
l
,
s
,
t
=
0
”; Page 2158, Section II: “Let a binary variable
r
l
,
s
,
t
denote the time for starting the repair for s-th path. Specifically,
r
l
,
s
,
t
=
1
if the damaged transmission line l starts to be repaired at time t for s-th path; otherwise
r
l
,
s
,
t
=
0
. Note that any damaged transmission line is repaired at most once, given by
∑
k
=
1
t
r
l
,
s
,
k
≤
1
∀
l
∈
Ω
L
∀
t
∈
[
1
,
T
]
∀
s
∈
[
1
,
N
s
]
...It is intuitive that line l would be repaired only if it is damaged, which gives a logic relationship between
z
l
,
s
,
t
and
y
l
,
t
0
for the line l at the time t, such that
z
l
,
s
,
t
≤
1
-
y
l
,
t
0
∀
l
∈
Ω
L
∀
t
∈
[
1
,
T
]
∀
s
∈
[
1
,
N
s
]
”);
PNG
media_image7.png
51
244
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(22) (Page 2158, Section II: “When the line l is damaged by the typhoon, it will be repaired after the typhoon is concluded. Thus, the relationship among
y
l
,
t
0
,
y
l
,
s
,
t
, and
r
l
,
s
,
t
will satisfy
y
l
,
s
,
t
=
y
l
,
t
0
+
∑
k
=
1
t
-
T
l
R
E
P
r
l
,
s
,
k
,
∀
l
∈
Ω
L
∀
t
∈
[
T
l
R
E
P
,
T
]
∀
s
∈
[
1
,
N
s
]
”)
where
∆
T
i
j
r
e
represents a time required to repair the line; after a damaged line has been repaired for
∆
T
i
j
r
e
,
u
i
j
,
t
d
changes from 0 to 1, and
u
i
j
,
t
*
indicates whether the line has received a disaster management arrangement provided by a disaster prediction scenario; if the line is damaged at a time t1,
u
i
j
,
t
*
∀
t
≥
t
1
;
PNG
media_image8.png
51
220
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(23) (Page 2158, Section II: “A line repair is done within a certain number of periods. Thus, the
r
l
,
s
,
t
and
z
l
,
s
,
t
relationship is expressed as
∑
k
=
t
-
T
l
R
E
P
t
r
l
,
s
,
k
=
z
l
,
s
,
t
∀
l
∈
Ω
L
,
∀
t
∈
T
l
R
E
P
+
1
,
T
,
∀
s
∈
[
1
,
N
s
]
)
PNG
media_image9.png
39
141
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(23) (Page 2158, Section II: “The number of transmission lines that can be repaired simultaneously is limited by available resources, given by
∑
i
j
∈
Ω
L
z
l
,
s
,
t
≤
X
∀
t
∈
1
,
T
∀
s
∈
1
,
N
s
where X is the line repair limit”)
where H represents the resources needed to be repaired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Wang in view of Zhang and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Ding so as to include the constraints above. Doing so would allow repair resources to be coordinated with the aim of repairing critical lines as quickly as possible (Ding, Page 2163, Section IV: “fast-start units can be committed in advance to prevent load shedding under possible contingencies and critical line repairs are initiated immediately to pick up critical loads as quickly as possible”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiyi Wang et al. (US 2024/0275167 A1), in view of Zhang, in view of Chen, and in view of Zhang et al. (“Characterizing temporal-coupled feasible region of active distribution networks.” 2021 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting (IAS). IEEE, 2021), herein “Zhang 2.”
Regarding claim 7, Saiyi Wang in view of Zhang and Chen teaches the method of claim 6.
Zhang further teaches wherein deducing the mathematical representation of dynamic resilience region, comprises:
for a certain disaster scenario, determining a variable 0-1 in the optimized urban power system three-stage model, wherein the constraint conditions of the three-stage model can be written in a compact form as shown in equation (24);
PNG
media_image10.png
19
76
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(24)
where A and B are coefficients of θ and x, and c represents a constant in the model (Page 1860, Section III: “The constraints ΦDFR in DSO operation model can be simplified as the following form Ax + By ≤ b… A and B are the corresponding coefficients matrices of x and y, respectively”); the dynamic resilience region is described as that when key parameters are within the dynamic resilience region, there is always a corresponding x in the power system; when the key parameters are outside the dynamic resilience region, there is no x that makes equation (24) valid; the dynamic resilience region is represented by
Φ
θ
D
R
R
:
PNG
media_image11.png
27
187
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(25)
determining whether a given θ is within the dynamic resilience region depends on whether the corresponding x exists:
PNG
media_image12.png
21
160
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(26)
in the equation, H is a set composed of x, and a physical meaning of equation (26) is that a scheduling strategy x for the urban power grid that satisfies the key parameter θ (Page 1860, Section III: “According to the simplified DSO operation model, the physical definition of DFR can be derived, that is, for any exchange power x, DSO can always find at least one corresponding feasible operation scheme y. Its mathematical definition is: The DFR is a set ΦDFR that satisfies ΦDFR = {x |Ax ≤ b − By}”).
Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitations below.
Zhang 2 further teaches based on robust optimization, positive relaxation variables are used to represent whether all the θ in the current set are within the dynamic resilience region, the physical meaning indicates whether a farthest point in a current optimization space
Φ
is within the dynamic resilience region, and if R(θ)=0, it indicates that the current optimization space is in the dynamic resilience region, otherwise, it indicates that θ is outside the dynamic resilience region, that is, the current optimization space is larger than the dynamic resilience region;
PNG
media_image13.png
59
203
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(27)
in the equation, R(θ) is used to represent whether all the θ in the current set
Φ
are within the dynamic resilience region, that is, R(θ)=0 and H are equivalent to non-empty sets, 1 and I are set vectors of corresponding dimensions, and
r
+
and
r
-
are positive slack variables (Page 3, Section II: “problem (8) can be reformulated as a max-min optimization program to determine the TCFR boundary, shown as follows:
Q
=
m
a
x
z
∈
D
T
C
F
R
m
i
n
y
,
ξ
,
τ
l
T
ξ
+
l
T
τ
s.t.
β
y
+
γ
z
+
ξ
-
τ
≤
b
0
ξ
≥
0
,
τ
≥
0
However, problem (9) cannot be directly solved by off-the-shelf solvers, so the next step is to explore how to solve this problem efficiently and find the TCFR boundary that makes Q=0.”);
since a two-layer optimization problem shown in equation (27) is difficult to be solved by existing commercial solvers, based on a KKT condition and theorem of strong coexistence, the two-layer optimization problem is deduced as an MPLP problem:
PNG
media_image14.png
59
203
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(28)
where d is a dual multiplier of inner-layer optimization problem in equation (27) (Page 6, Appendix: “The inner minimization problem in (8) can be replaced by its dual problem, then problem (9) is reformulated as a linear program with complementarity constrains (LPCC).
Q
=
m
a
x
z
,
h
h
T
(
b
0
-
γ
z
)
,
s
.
t
.
T
z
≤
v
,
β
T
h
=
0
,
-
1
≤
h
≤
0
where
h
is the dual variable), and equation (28) can be written as equation (29) because there is no coupling relationship between
d
and
θ
:
PNG
media_image15.png
56
212
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(29)
according to the theorem of strong coexistence,
-
d
T
A
θ
is converted into
h
T
μ
, and the KKT condition is introduced to ensure optimality:
PNG
media_image16.png
59
361
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(30)
since the KKT condition is introduced to nonlinear terms, the nonlinear terms are linearized by a big M method (Page 3, Section III: “To efficiently solve this problem with complementary relaxation conditions, the Big M method is introduced”):
PNG
media_image17.png
81
393
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(31)
where
μ
is a dual multiplier of the inner-layer optimization problem in equation (29), and equation (31) is an MILP problem which can be solved by commercial solvers (Page 7, Appendix: “Therefore, problem (26) can be reformulated as a mixed integer linear programming (MILP), which can be easily solved
Q
(
x
)
=
m
a
x
z
,
h
,
ν
,
δ
h
T
b
0
+
k
T
ν
s
.
t
.
T
T
k
+
γ
T
h
=
0
,
β
T
h
=
0
,
-
1
≤
h
≤
0
0
≤
ν
-
T
z
≤
M
δ
,
0
≤
k
≤
M
(
1
-
δ
)
where
M
is a sufficiently large constant”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Wang in view of Zhang and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Zhang 2 so as to include the MILP problem above. Doing so would allow optimality of the problem to be enforced with the aim of improving efficiency of a solver (Zhang 2, Page 2, Section I: “Based on Duality Principle, the max-min model is transformed into a solvable mixed-integer linear programming that can be efficiently optimized by off-the-shelf solvers”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiyi Wang et al. (US 2024/0275167 A1), in view of Zhang, in view of Chen, and in view of Chong Wang et al. (“Transmission system resilience enhancement with extended steady-state security region in consideration of uncertain topology changes.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09987 (2019)).
Regarding claim 9, Saiyi Wang in view of Zhang and Chen teaches the method of claim 1.
Chong Wang further teaches wherein based on the urban power system three-stage model, using the shortest distance from the current operating point to the boundary of the dynamic resilience region to represent the dynamic safety margin of the urban power system under the current disaster prediction scenario, comprises:
introducing a positive slack variable to quantify and represent the dynamic safety margin, as shown in equation (37):
PNG
media_image18.png
59
204
media_image18.png
Greyscale
(37)
wherein a physical meaning of equation (37) is: a minimum change required in the constraints to push important load operating points in a current dynamic resilience region to move beyond a safety boundary (Page 4, Section III: “The physical meaning is that there exist a strategy satisfying the operating constraints for a given ESSR. To find a strategy, we can construct a new optimization model by introducing positive slack vectors
s
+
and
s
-
f
(
Y
)
=
m
i
n
Y
,
s
+
,
s
-
1
T
s
+
+
1
T
s
-
(6a)
s
.
t
.
A
⋅
Y
+
s
+
-
s
-
≤
B
(6b)
s
+
≥
0
,
s
-
≥
0
(6c)where
1
and
0
are vectors that consist of 1 and 0 with proper dimensions, respectively”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Saiyi Wang in view of Zhang and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Chong Wang so as to include introducing a positive slack variable to quantify and represent the dynamic safety margin, as shown in equation (37) wherein a physical meaning of equation (37) is a minimum change required in the constraints to push important load operating points in a current dynamic resilience region to move beyond a safety boundary. Doing so would allow the use of slack variables to quantify departures from the operating constraints with the aim of finding a strategy under uncertain system conditions (Chong Wang, Page 8, Section V: “The physical meaning for the ESSR-based resilient strategy is to find a strategy satisfying the operating constraints in consideration of uncertain varying topology changes”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0236513 A1: Distribution system security region
US 2020/0153273 A1: Post-Disaster restoration of a power distribution grid
US 2021/0184494 A1: Calculating feasible region for power plant
US 2022/0407311 A1: Dynamic capability region for electrical equipment
Lorca, Alvaro, and Xu Andy Sun. “Adaptive robust optimization with dynamic uncertainty sets for multi-period economic dispatch under significant wind.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 30.4 (2014): 1702-1713. (Year: 2014)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Magdalena Kossek whose telephone number is (571)272-5603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/M.I.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights