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 .
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 and 04/06/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qianli et al. “New Approach of Fault Detection and Fault Phase Selection Based on Initial Current Traveling Waves” (hereinafter “Qianli”).
Regarding claim 1, Qianli teaches a method for fault classification (refer to page 394 second column), the method comprising: obtaining voltage or current measurements at a terminal (refer to page 394 first column lines 16 and 16: “the current measured at relay point”) of a transmission line (refer to abstract) in each of three phases measured during a fault (refer to page 394 second column); performing modal transformations on the voltage or current measurements to obtain traveling wave signals with reference to each of the three phases (refer to page 394 second column); and classifying the fault based on a magnitude of the traveling wave signals (refer to Table 1).
Regarding claim 2, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the classifying the fault is performed without using an incremental quantity of the voltage or current measurements with reference to time (implicit)(refer to page 394 second column and Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, comprising generating a trip signal to cause a single-phase trip or a three-phase trip based on the classification of the fault (refer to Qianli I. Introduction on page 393).
Regarding claim 5, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1: wherein the traveling wave signals include zero mode traveling wave signals (refer to Table 1, Io column) with reference to each of the three phases (refer to Table 1, Io column); and the method comprises comparing a magnitude of the zero mode traveling wave signals with a zero mode threshold value (refer to Table 1)(the zero mode threshold value is zero, if the zero mode traveling wave signal is non-zero, it is grounded, if it is zero it is phase to phase, i.e. ungrounded) to differentiate a fault involving ground from a fault that does not involve ground (refer to Table 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qianli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. Chinese Patent Document CN 107315133 A (hereinafter “Gao”).
Regarding claim 3, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1; however, Qianli does not teach wherein the modal transformation is a Clarkes Transformation. However, Gao teaches wherein the modal transformation is a Clarkes Transformation (refer to [0039]: “then the fault phase-mode transformation, selecting proper voltage modulus and current modulus, the fault phase-mode transformation is when a three phase electrical power system fault according to the Clarke phase-mode transformation matrix (for the different fault types in Table 1 of modulus can be required to look up) the asymmetric phase decomposition forming mutually symmetrical modulus” and [0043]: “The travelling wave related theory using Clarke conversion as an example, different failure using voltage and current modulus as shown in Table 1.”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qianli to include the Clarke transformation of Gao to provide the advantage of using a similar method of decoupling coupled three-phase power systems into simpler components in order to facilitate determination of fault location without additional transformations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qianli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schweitzer et al. U.S. Patent Application 2017/0104324 (hereinafter “Schweitzer”).
Regarding claim 8, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1; however, Qianli does not teach wherein the terminal is connected to a synchronous power generation resource. However, Schweitzer teaches wherein the terminal is connected to a synchronous power generation resource (refer to [0025], [0028], and [0036]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qianli to include the generation resource of Schweitzer to provide the advantage of applying the fault classification method of Qianli to common types of power sources such as synchronous generation resources, thereby protecting many types of systems from damage due to faults.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qianli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang et al. Chinese Patent Document CN 108767819 A (hereinafter “Liang”).
Regarding claim 9, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1; however, Qianli does not teach wherein the terminal is connected to a grid connected transmission line. However, Liang teaches wherein the terminal is connected to a grid connected transmission line (refer to abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qianli to include the grid transmission line of Liang to provide the advantage of applying the fault classification method of Qianli to common types of power sources such as grid transmission lines, thereby protecting many types of systems from damage due to faults.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qianli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saleh et al. U.S. Patent Application 2022/0014021 (hereinafter “Saleh”).
Regarding claim 10, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1; however, Qianli does not teach wherein the terminal is connected to an inverter-based power generation resource. However, Saleh teaches wherein the terminal is connected to an inverter-based power generation resource (refer to abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qianli to include the inverter-based power generation resource of Saleh to provide the advantage of applying the fault classification method of Qianli to common types of power sources such as inverter-based power generation resources, thereby protecting many types of systems from damage due to faults.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qianli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johannesson U.S. Patent Application 2017/0117701 (hereinafter “Johannesson”).
Regarding claim 11, Qianli teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, however Qianli does not teach an intelligent electronic device comprising a processor configured to execute the method. However, Johannesson teaches an intelligent electronic device (refer to fig.7)(refer also to [0054] and [0055]) comprising a processor configured to execute the method (refer to processing module 120)(fig.7)(refer also to [0054] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qianli to include the intelligent electronic device and processor of Johannesson to provide the advantage of providing proper equipment to perform the method of Qianli.
Regarding claim 12, Qianli teaches the method of claim 1; however, Qianli does not teach a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute the method. However, Johannesson teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. computer-readable means 122 and 123)(fig.9) comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor (refer to processing module 120)(fig.7)(refer also to [0054] and [0055]), cause the processor to execute the method (refer to [0179]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Qianli to include the non-transitory computer readable medium and processor of Johannesson to provide the advantage of providing proper equipment to perform the method of Qianli.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 6, especially wherein the traveling wave signals further include beta mode traveling wave signals with reference to each of the three phases and the method comprises: when the fault involves ground, classifying the fault as involving a first phase of the three phases and ground when a first condition is satisfied, wherein the first condition is satisfied when a magnitude of beta traveling wave signal with reference to the first phase is a minimum of the magnitudes of beta traveling wave signals of each of the three phases and is less than a beta mode threshold value. Claim 7 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 7, especially wherein: the traveling wave signals further include alpha mode traveling wave signals with reference to each of the three phases; the method comprises, when the fault involves ground, classifying the fault as involving two phases of the three phases and the ground when a second condition is satisfied, wherein the second condition is satisfied when a magnitude of alpha traveling wave signal with reference to a third phase of the three phases is a minimum of the magnitudes of alpha traveling wave signals of each of the three phases; and classifying the fault as involving the three phases and the ground when the second condition is not satisfied; and when the fault does not involve ground, classifying the fault as involving two phases of the three phases when a third condition is satisfied, wherein the third condition is satisfied when the magnitude of alpha traveling wave signal with reference to a third phase of the three phases is a minimum of the magnitudes of alpha traveling wave signals of each of the three phases and is less than an alpha mode threshold value; and classifying the fault as involving the three phases when the third condition is not satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights