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 .
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 cites the limitation,
“at least one subscriber information management system that records customer types and consumption data of electricity subscribers;...
at least one geographic information system that records locations of electricity subscriber customers and transformer locations; and
at least one server that, in communication with the at least one subscriber information management system, the at least one automatic meter reading system and the at least one geographic information system, calculates an daily average total consumption of all customers fed from that conductor and the load passing through a conductor for each low voltage conductor in the transformer area by receiving the consumption information of the subscribers from the subscriber information management system, the consumption data and peak consumption value of the transformers from the automatic meter reading system, and the location information of the subscribers and the location information of the transformers from the geographic information system” which is rendered indefinite.
Applicant is using interchangeable terms which causes confusion. For example, Applicant is describing “electric subscribers” followed by “electric subscriber customers” and thereafter, followed by “all customers”. Therefore, it is uncertain whether all of the subscriber/customer are all related.
Further, the words “that conductor” lacks antecedent basis, and it seems the claims are missing essential elements and/or steps for the conductor.
The terms “a conductor for each low voltage conductor in the transformer area” causes confusion because of the terms “that conductor”, and it seems the claims are missing essential steps for each conductor.
The term “transformer locations” with “in the transformer area” creates ambiguity.
The term “transformer meters” with “transformers” also creates ambiguity.
Therefore, correction is required by elaborating the claims in a comprehensible and detailed manner.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for their dependency of claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim defines the formula for the daily average consumption total of the customers with the equation as equal to
(reading index - previous reading index)
(reading date / previous reading date).
However, the formula is unorthodox and fails the enablement requirement. One ordinarily skilled in the art would know that in order to calculate daily averages for consumption of energy would be:
Daily Average Consumption = Current Reading index – Previous reading index
Current Reading Date – Previous Reading Date
The specification does not provide an adequate reason for using an alternative formula. Only the formula is provided. Thus, the mathematical equation is flawed in comparison to what is commonly known in the art. Thus, the claim should be canceled by Applicant for failing the enablement requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonderegger (US 20050090995 A1) in view of Keefe (US 20060238364 A1).
Claim 1. Sonderegger teaches a voltage drop and capacity use calculation system that enables the calculation of voltage drop and capacity use in a low voltage network from subscriber consumption data, the system comprising:
at least one subscriber information management system that records customer types and consumption data of electricity subscribers;
([0025] The data it receives includes customer load data (e.g., customer's monthly billing statement generated by utility companies), distribution connectivity maps showing how transformers, feeders, taps, and meters are connected, hourly SCADA readings, and weather data. The customer load data may be in monthly or daily interval. Some customer load data, such as load data for large industrial clients, may even be in an hourly format. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to obtain the above data, as they are standard information in the industry and/or publicly available information. For example, the customer load data may be obtained from Customer Information Systems (CIS). (e.g. industrial clients is at least one customer type));
at least one automatic meter reading system that enables reading consumption data from transformer meters and recording of peak consumption data
([0052] If feeder loads are requested, feeders are modeled by aggregating transformer loads, energy losses, and non-accounted energy. The losses and non-accounted energy include line losses, transformer losses, and unmetered end uses that can occur between customer meter and feeder.
[0053] After the computed weekly loss factors are included, the rendered daily average and peak kWh values are compared to the measured daily averages and peaks.);
at least one geographic information system that records the-locations of electricity subscriber customers and transformer locations
([0035] The collected data includes customer state plane coordinates (e.g., coordinates of the meters) and coordinates of the transformers. Typically, meters are located within an area of a given distance from the transformer.
[0025] The distribution connectivity maps may be obtained from Geographic Information System (GIS).)
;- and at least one server that, in communication with the at least one subscriber information management system, the at least one automatic meter reading system and the at least one geographic information system
([0025] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of the memory system 50. Each of the analytic servers 52 includes a database 60 and at least one processor 66... The data it receives includes customer load data (e.g., customer's monthly billing statement generated by utility companies), distribution connectivity maps showing how transformers, feeders, taps, and meters are connected, hourly SCADA readings, and weather data.).
Sonderegger further teaches the process of calculating a daily average total consumption of all customers fed from that conductor by receiving the consumption information of the subscribers from the subscriber information management system, the consumption data and peak consumption value of the transformers from the automatic meter reading system, and the location information of the subscribers and the location information of the transformers from the geographic information system
([0048] The model calibration process 110 may involve an aggregation process to determine the transformer load or the feeder load. Determining the transformer load includes using the distribution connectivity map to identify the meters that are supplied by the transformer of interest, and summing the hourly load shapes of each meter that is supplied by the transformer.
[0053] After the computed weekly loss factors are included, the rendered daily average and peak kWh values are compared to the measured daily averages and peaks. [0054] The calculated discrepancy patterns in daily average and peak kWh are used to modify the selection of daily library items used to render customer meters on this feeder.
[0025] The distribution connectivity maps may be obtained from Geographic Information System (GIS). (e.g. Location information)).
The prior art does not specifically disclose calculates an daily average total consumption of the load passing through a conductor for each low voltage conductor in the transformer area.
However, Keefe teaches calculating daily average total consumption of the load passing through a conductor for each low voltage conductor in the transformer area
([0047] The data used to calculate the median voltages and plot the voltages of the voltage plot 530 may be displayed in a voltage chart 550, which lists a date and time associated with the voltage measurements for the two LV energized conductors. The user may scroll up or down through the chart 550, which also hi-lights the highest and lowest voltage measurement of each LV energized conductor... the chart 550 might show daily measurements, daily averages, or daily mean values.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the process of calculating daily average total consumption of the load passing through a conductor for each low voltage conductor in the transformer area as taught by Keefe within the system of Sonderegger for the purpose of enhancing the system to provide a detailed analysis of subnetworks to determine operational status of each conductor.
Claim 2. Sonderegger and Keefe teach the system that allows the calculation of voltage drop and
capacity use in the low voltage network from subscriber consumption data of Claim 1.
Although the prior art may not specifically disclose wherein the daily average consumption total of the customers is calculated by the server with the equation (reading index - previous reading index) / (reading date / previous reading date), however, both Sonderegger and Keefe teach calculating and displaying the daily average consumption total. Since, Sonderegger and Keefe have the ability then one ordinarily skilled in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the formula to arrive to the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success of formulating the daily average consumption total.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonderegger and Keefe and further in view of Tawalbeh (Non-Patent Document U).
Claim 3. Sonderegger and Keefe teach the system that allows the calculation of voltage drop and capacity use in the low voltage network from subscriber consumption data according to of Claim
1, and further discloses the process of determining loads but do not specifically disclose wherein the load passing through a conductor is calculated by the server with the equation ((total daily average consumption of the customer / total daily consumption of all customers in the transformer) * measured peak load).
However, Tawalbeh teaches wherein the load passing through a conductor is calculated by the server with the equation ((total daily average consumption of the customer / total daily consumption of all customers in the transformer) * measured peak load)
(Diversity factor in a distribution network is the ratio of the sum of the peak demands of the individual customers to the peak demand of the network...The diversity factor,DF, is greater than unity and defined by the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
147
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(e.g. the formula allows at least 1 customer to be fed into the summation where consumption of power passing through a conductor is calculated for the single customer is determined ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the equation as taught by Tawalbeh within the system of Sonderegger for the purpose of enhancing the system to determine a demand of power used by a customer during certain periods of time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
