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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 3/26/2026. Applicant did not amend claims but provided remarks. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to arguments
In regards to the 112 rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts (pg. 10):
Paragraph 50 of the specification states, "FIG. 1 A illustrates an example flowchart 100, according to example embodiments. As shown by the example flowchart 100 of FIG. 1 A, the instant solution includes, in certain embodiments, a power management system 102 that estimates a time of peak usage of electricity at a location such as a residence or commercial enterprise and prepares the location for peak usage of electricity prior to the time that the peak usage of the electricity occurs. In one embodiment, the power management system 102 and the location can be part of an electric power transmission and delivery network." Thus, the specification describes estimating peak usage from an electric power transmission and delivery network (i.e., an electric grid). Applicant notes that the specification refers to the "electric" or "grid" in multiple other locations.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and maintain the 112 rejection of claims 1,8, and 15 as specified below.
Specifically, Applicant suggests that “a time that a peak usage of electricity from an electric grid will occur at a location” should be interpreted as the peak usage of the electric grid ( “As one of ordinary skill would understand, "peak usage" means "the periods when electricity demand reaches its highest levels across the power grid." See pg. 8 of the remarks. “Thus, the specification describes estimating peak usage from an electric power transmission and delivery network (i.e., an electric grid)”. See Pg. 10 remarks ). However the disclosure does not support this feature.
The specification supports “peak usage of electricity at a location”, “peak usage at the location 150” and “a power management system 102 that estimates a time of peak usage of electricity at a location such as a residence or commercial enterprise”.
The disclosure shows location 150 as a residence and not a grid (Fig. . The 1B) and states “a location” or “a residence or commercial enterprise” and not a grid. A peak usage of location 150 (i.e. residence) does not give a peak usage of a grid or the power transmission and delivery network that it is a part of.
The specification cited by the applicant (e.g. “the location can be part of an electric power transmission and delivery network”) does not mean the location IS the power transmission and delivery network nor does a power transmission and delivery network inherently mean a grid. For example, two residences can be a part of a power transmission and delivery network. “Estimating a time of peak usage of electricity at a location” that is a part of power transmission and delivery network can be interpreted as estimating a peak usage at one of the residences. A peak usage of a residence or location on a power transmission and delivery network does not inherently mean a peak usage of the grid or the power transmission and delivery network that the residence is a part of.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
Thus, Applicant expressly states that claim 1 does not recite "computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration," contrary to the Examiner's assertion. Therefore, the Examiner fails to address Applicant's argument.
In response:
Applicants arguments seem contradictory and unclear. Applicant argues that the Applicant expressly states that claim 1 does not recite "computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration," but argues “Instead, Applicant distinguishes what MOKRUSHIN discloses and what MOKRUSHIN would need to disclose to read on claim 1. As discussed on p. 8 of the response filed 18 December 2025, MOKRUSHIN does not disclose or suggest computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration” (pg. 7 of remarks).
Specifically, the Applicants remarks state the following:
The Examiner misrepresents Applicant's statement. What the Applicant actually said in the 22 January 2026 response (RESPONSE) was:
Applicant does not assert that claim 1 recites "computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration." Instead, Applicant distinguishes what MOKRUSHIN discloses and what MOKRUSHIN would need to disclose to read on claim 1. As discussed on p. 8 of the response filed 18 December 2025, MOKRUSHIN does not disclose or suggest computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration, as required by the Examiner's interpretation.
Thus, Applicant expressly states that claim 1 does not recite "computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration," contrary to the Examiner's assertion.
As seen above the Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose or suggest “computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration”. However, the Applicant expressly states that the prior art would need to disclose or teach this feature (See remark’s above). As stated in the previous office action, Claims 1,8 and 15 does not recite "computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration". Therefore, the Applicant is arguing that the prior art does not teach what is not claimed.
Additionally the claim language of claim 1 does not inherently mean "computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration" nor is it limited to these features.
In response to Applicants remark “It only describes (a) a check of whether the existing remaining charge is sufficient for the predicted duration, and (b) if not, deploying a UAV to charge, without any teaching that the charging is performed "to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration" of anything, much less "for a duration of the peak usage" as recited in the claim”. Examiner points below and to pg. 5 of the OA dated 2/6/2026 where the Examiner specifically points to the prior art to teach the claim language “charging a battery at the location to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage”.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
“To address Applicant's argument, the Examiner relies on, [0054] of Applicant's specification to supply the missing teachings of MOKRUSHIN. It is inappropriate for the Examiner to use Applicant's own specification to supply missing features in the cited art.”
In response:
As seen in the rejections of claim 1,8 and 15, the Examiner does not use the Applicants disclosure to supply missing features of the prior art as claimed by the applicant. As seen in the rejection show, the Examiner uses the teachings of MOKRUSHIN and Shelton to teach the limitations of the claims.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
Additionally, it is unreasonable for the Examiner to rely on [0054] to support the contention that the claimed "peak usage" means any usage, which is the clear meaning of "Using BRI, in light of the specification above. The Examiner interprets a "peak usage" of electricity from an electric grid as the energy in which the loads of the grid are used or consumed."
As one of ordinary skill would understand, "peak usage" means "the periods when electricity demand reaches its highest levels across the power grid." In light of the plain understanding of "peak usage," the Examiner's attempt to redefine "peak usage" to mean any usage must fail.
In response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." (MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation).
As such, the speciation recites:
“[0054] In one embodiment, determining the probable electricity usage of each of the power consuming loads at the location can include an analysis of the electricity usage of each of the power consuming loads with respect to past periods, events, etc. For example, the electricity usage of each of the power consuming loads during a past power outage associated with a time of peak usage that affected the location”
[0054] …During times of peak usage of electricity, locations within the area that are experiencing peak usage are at risk of a loss of access to electricity. Thus, it is useful to know the amount of charge that a location in the area should maintain to ensure that its electricity needs are met during the time of peak usage.
As such the specification supports that a time of peak usage can be a time where the “electricity needs” of the loads are met.
Although the applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer, unless the Applicant set forth a special definition for the claim term “peak usage”, the claim term will be given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111).
Using BRI, in light of the specification above. Examiner interprets a “peak usage of electricity from an electric grid” as the energy in which the loads of the grid is used or consume.
Therefore, as seen in the rejection of claims 1,8 and 15, the Examiner uses the teachings of Mokrushin combined with the teachings of Shelton to teach the claim limitations of the claims 1,8 and 15 as specified below.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
The Examiner's interpretation of MOKRUSHIN's power failure as peak usage is untenable. In the event of a power failure, there is no peak usage duration. Simply put, the duration of a power failure is not the same as a duration of a peak usage of an electric grid.
And further asserts:
Again, the Examiner confuses the duration of a power failure with the peak usage duration. This feature is discussed in more detail below.
In response:
The Examiner does not use MOKRUSHIN's power failure as peak usage. As seen in the rejection of claims 1,8, and 15, the examiner uses the predicted power consumption and energy usage of the base station 102 during the time of the predicted power supply/grid failure is identified as “peak usage” (See pg. 9 of OA).
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
This statement is incorrect. Claim 1 requires two actions: (1) determining the charge and (2) charging to that amount. This involves more than just having a battery charged to some level in the past. For example, if I determine how much gas I need to travel from D.C. to N.Y.C. and fill my tank accordingly, I have performed two actions: a determination and the filling of my tank. In contrast, if I merely fill my tank and drive to N.Y.C., I have not performed any determination.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
If the Examiner persists in this assertion, Applicant insists that the Examiner point
out where MOKRUSHIN discloses the determination of the sufficient charge.
In response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree. As seen in the rejection of claims 1,8, an 15, The Examiner uses MOKRUSHIN to teach claim language:
“charging a battery at the location to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage (Fig. 2 S206-S210 and ([0025][0052][0062]. If a primary power supply for the base station 102 ..is predicted to fail, a UAV may be deployed to the base station 102 to charge batteries providing the secondary power supply for the base station 102. The batteries for the base station 102 can thus be replenished, thereby… preventing interruptions to the operation of the base station 102 caused by the power failure….”
The Examiner further states “Mokrushin teaches that the deployment of the UAV’s to charge the batteries of the base station was to prevent “interruptions to the operation of the base station 102 caused by the power failure” ([0025][0062]). Therefore the UAV’s charged the batteries to a level that was determined sufficient to last the duration of the predicted power failure/peak usage prior to the time predicted power failure)”.
Based the teachings of Mokrushin above, since Mokrushin teaches charging the batteries prevents interruptions to the operation of the base station 102 caused by the power failure, then Mokrushin teaches that the charge level was determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage prior to the duration peak usage.
Likewise, in response to Applicants example “if I merely fill my tank and drive to N.Y.C., I have not performed any determination”, if the tank is replenished to prevent “interruptions to the operation” of the vehicle during the drive to N.Y C, then a determination was made that the tank level was filled to a level determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the drive to N.Y C.
Therefore MOKRUSHIN in view of Shelton discloses or suggests the claim language of claims 1,8 and 15 as specified below.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
The cited sections of MOKRUSHIN do not disclose or suggest peak usage of electricity from an electric grid at the base station, identify a particular time of peak usage, or include any step of preparing for such a peak usage before that time. Rather, the method is intended to address a predicted primary power supply failure, not a period of increased consumption or peak usage, as recited in claim 1.
In response:
As seen in the claims 1,8, and 15, the claims are “estimating a time of peak usage” and “preparing for the time of peak usage by charging the battery”. The claim is estimating (i.e. predicting) a potential event at a future time of energy use and charges a battery based on that prediction. The claims does not claim an ACTUAL time of peak usage. As such the claim is charging a battery based on a predicted future event of the grid.
As seen below and stated above, the Examiner uses MOKRUSHIN combined with the teachings of Shelton to teach the claim language of claims 1,8 and 15 as specified below.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
In that path, there is no charging at all, let alone "charging a battery at the location to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage."
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1,8, and 15 Applicant asserts:
“…so the cited logic cannot support the Examiner's assertion that "the batteries were charged to a level determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage." MOKRUSHIN does not disclose or suggest computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration, as required by the Examiner's interpretation.
Applicant further asserts:
It only describes (a) a check of whether the existing remaining charge is sufficient for the predicted duration, and (b) if not, deploying a UAV to charge, without any teaching that the charging is performed "to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration" of anything, much less "for a duration of the peak usage" as recited in the claim.
And further asserts:
Thus, the cited portions of MOKRUSHIN do not disclose or suggest "preparing for the peak usage before the time [that a peak usage of electricity from an electric grid will occur], wherein the preparing comprises: charging a battery at the location to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage."
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and combines the teachings of MOKRUSHIN combined with the teachings of Shelton to teach claim language preparing for the peak usage before the time ([0025] [0053] and [0062] of Mokrushin), and
charging a battery at the location to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage (Fig. 2 S206-S210 and ([0025][0062][0052] of MOKRUSHIN).
The Examiner also combines the teachings of MOKRUSHIN in view of Shelton to teach the claim language of claims 1,8 and 15 for the reasons set forth below.
Additionally, as stated above, claims 1,8 and 15 does not claim “computing a required charge level and then charging the batteries to that target level so that they will last for a specified duration”.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 2-20 Applicant asserts:
Applicant submits that these claims are patentable over MOKRUSHIN, SHELTON, YANG and Emadi.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the rejection of claims 2-20 where the Examiner uses the combined teachings of MOKRUSHIN, SHELTON, YANG and Emadi to teach the claim language of claims 2-20 as specified below.
In regards to applicants remaining remarks:
Applicant remarks have been considered but are moot base on new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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(s) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites “a peak usage of electricity from an electric grid” which is not supported in the specification and is therefore new matter.
The specification supports “peak usage of electricity at a location”, “peak usage at the location 150” and “a power management system 102 that estimates a time of peak usage of electricity at a location such as a residence or commercial enterprise”.
However the specification does not support the peak usage of electricity from an electric grid.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are included in this rejection based on its dependence on claims 1,8 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6,8-11, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokrushin (US 20220007213) In view of Shelton (US 20100090532).
As to claim 1, Mokrushin discloses a method, comprising:
estimating a time that a peak usage of electricity from an electric grid will occur at a location (system 100 comprising multiple base stations 102 and UAV depots (i.e. location). [0024] [0038] - [0039] and Fig. 2 S202-S204 where a predicted duration of the power failure of the primary power supply ([0022] electrical power grid) is determined (i.e. “a time that a peak usage from an electric grid will occur”). [0050]-[0052] teaches where batteries supply power to the base station for the duration of the failure of the primary power supply. The predicted duration may be a time period that commences from the time at which the primary power supply is predicted to fail …. .. may end at the time at which the primary power supply is predicted to be restored. The predicted power consumption and energy usage of the base station 102 ([0046] and [0094]) during the predicted power supply/grid failure is identified as “peak usage”); and
preparing for the peak usage before the time ([0025] … one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, are used to charge the batteries providing a secondary power supply for the base station 102, in order to mitigate the impact of power failures in the primary power supply. …. If a primary power supply for the base station 102 ..is predicted to fail, a UAV may be deployed to the base station 102 to charge batteries providing the secondary power supply for the base station 102. [0053] … deployment of the UAV may be initiated directly upon a determination that the primary power supply for the base station 102 … will fail. [0062] The batteries for the base station 102 can thus be recharged, thereby … preventing any potential disruptions to base station operations that may have been caused by a failure in the primary power supply ... As such, Mokrushin teaches the UAV’s are preparing for the duration of the predicted power failure/peak usage prior to the predicted power failure/peak usage), wherein the preparing comprises:
charging a battery at the location to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage (Fig. 2 S206-S210 and [0052]. If a primary power supply for the base station 102 ..is predicted to fail, a UAV may be deployed to the base station 102 to charge batteries providing the secondary power supply for the base station 102. The batteries for the base station 102 can thus be replenished, thereby… preventing interruptions to the operation of the base station 102 caused by the power failure. As such the batteries have been charged to a level that lasts the duration of the predicted power failure/peak usage.. Mokrushin teaches that the deployment of the UAV’s to charge the batteries of the base station was to prevent “interruptions to the operation of the base station 102 caused by the power failure” ([0025][0062]). Therefore the UAV’s charged the batteries to a level that was determined sufficient to last the duration of the predicted power failure/peak usage prior to the time predicted power failure).
Mokrushin does not disclose/teach notifying the location to preserve the charge level.
Shelton teaches notifying a location to preserve the charge level ([0009] [0018] maintaining the state of charge (SOC) of an energy storage device that is energetically coupled with the electricity grid to provide ancillary services. …when an operator requests regulation (i.e. notifying the location), a regulation system services the request by providing additional energy from the energy storage device or absorbing excess energy into the energy storage device. In order to reliably respond to subsequent operator requests, the charge on the energy storage device is sustained within a specified range).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mokrushin to include notifying the location to preserve the charge level in order to ensure there isn’t a disruption in the base station during the duration of a predicted outage from the primary energy source.
As to claims 8 and 15, Mokrushin discloses a server, comprising: a storage; and a processor; wherein the storage and the processor are communicably coupled and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform ([0088]-[0091] The management apparatus 400 comprises processing circuitry 404 and a machine-readable medium (such as memory) 402. The machine-readable medium stores instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry 404. the management apparatus 400 comprises a network node), wherein the processor is configured to ([0088]-[0091] cause the management apparatus 400 to..):
estimate a time that a peak usage of electricity from an electric grid will occur at a location (system 100 comprising multiple base stations 102 and UAV depots (i.e. location). [0024] [0038] - [0039] and Fig. 2 S202-S204 where a predicted duration of the power failure of the primary power supply ([0022] electrical power grid) is determined (i.e. “a time that a peak usage from an electric grid will occur”). [0050]-[0052] teaches where batteries supply power to the base station for the duration of the failure of the primary power supply. The predicted duration may be a time period that commences from the time at which the primary power supply is predicted to fail …. .. may end at the time at which the primary power supply is predicted to be restored. The predicted power consumption and energy usage of the base station 102 ([0046] and [0094]) during the predicted power supply/grid failure is identified as “peak usage”); and
preparing for the peak usage before the time ([0025] … one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, are used to charge the batteries providing a secondary power supply for the base station 102, in order to mitigate the impact of power failures in the primary power supply. …. If a primary power supply for the base station 102 ..is predicted to fail, a UAV may be deployed to the base station 102 to charge batteries providing the secondary power supply for the base station 102. [0053] … deployment of the UAV may be initiated directly upon a determination that the primary power supply for the base station 102 … will fail. [0062] The batteries for the base station 102 can thus be recharged, thereby … preventing any potential disruptions to base station operations that may have been caused by a failure in the primary power supply ... As such, Mokrushin teaches the UAV’s are preparing for the duration of the predicted power failure/peak usage prior to the predicted power failure/peak usage), wherein the preparing comprises:
charging a battery at the location to a charge level that has been determined to be sufficient to last for a duration of the peak usage (Fig. 2 S206-S210 and [0052]. If a primary power supply for the base station 102 ..is predicted to fail, a UAV may be deployed to the base station 102 to charge batteries providing the secondary power supply for the base station 102. The batteries for the base station 102 can thus be replenished, thereby… preventing interruptions to the operation of the base station 102 caused by the power failure. As such the batteries have been charged to a level that lasts the duration of the predicted power failure/peak usage.. Mokrushin teaches that the deployment of the UAV’s to charge the batteries of the base station was to prevent “interruptions to the operation of the base station 102 caused by the power failure” ([0025][0062]). Therefore the UAV’s charged the batteries to a level that was determined sufficient to last the duration of the predicted power failure/peak usage prior to the time predicted power failure).
Mokrushin does not disclose/teach notifying the location to preserve the charge level.
Shelton teaches notifying a location to preserve the charge level ([0009] [0018] maintaining the state of charge (SOC) of an energy storage device that is energetically coupled with the electricity grid to provide ancillary services. …when an operator requests regulation (i.e. notifying the location), a regulation system services the request by providing additional energy from the energy storage device or absorbing excess energy into the energy storage device. In order to reliably respond to subsequent operator requests, the charge on the energy storage device is sustained within a specified range).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mokrushin to include notifying the location to preserve the charge level in order to ensure there isn’t a disruption in the base station during the duration of a predicted outage from the primary energy source.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Mokrushin in view of Shelton teaches the method of claim 1, the server of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of 15, wherein the estimating comprises:
identifying, other locations within an area that includes the location that have at least one of an energy storage or an energy generating capacity ([0038] a group of base stations that use renewable energy technologies or a particular type of renewable technology as a primary power supply) ; and
identifying corresponding types or amounts of at least one of the energy storage or the energy generating capacity ([0038] of Mokrushin…a group of base stations that use … a particular type of renewable technology as a primary power supply).
As to claims 3,10, and 17 Mokrushin in view of Shelton teaches the method of claim 1, the server of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of 15, wherein the estimating comprises:
identifying other locations within an area that includes the location that will need power during the peak usage ([0038] the default duration may be specific to … a group of base stations to which the base station 102 belongs);
determining when the other locations will need the power during the peak usage ([0086] Thus FIGS. 2 and 3 set out methods by which a UAV may charge the batteries of one or more base stations affected by a primary power supply failure).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18 Mokrushin in view of Shelton teaches the method of claim 1, the server of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of 15, wherein the charging of the battery comprises:
determining an energy storage capacity at the location and a probable energy usage at the location ([0045] .. step 206, it is determined whether the batteries providing a secondary power supply to the base station 102 are able to provide power to the base station for the predicted duration of the failure of the primary power supply).
As to claims 6, 13, and 19 Mokrushin in view of Shelton teaches the method of claim 1, the server of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of 15, wherein the notifying comprises:
providing an indication of: an amount of charge the battery is to store (step 206, it is determined whether the batteries providing a secondary power supply to the base station 102 are able to provide power to the base station for the predicted duration of the failure of the primary power supply. S208-210 “yes” or “no”. [0046] The determination as to whether the batteries are able to power the base station 102 for the predicted duration may be based on … a current state of the one or more batteries …, a remaining charge of the one or more batteries. As such S208and 210 determines the amount of charge the battery is to store)
whether the battery at the location is to receive a charge from an on-premises energy generating system (The UAV. [0012] the unmanned aerial vehicle to fly to a base station in the wireless communication network, select a power source from the plurality of power sources in the unmanned aerial vehicle, and charge one or more batteries providing a secondary power supply for the base station using the selected power source), and an amount of charge that the battery is to receive from the on-premises energy generating system ( [0030] The UAV 108 comprises or has access to one or more power sources. The one or more power sources may comprise a solar cell, a wind turbine, a UAV battery, a generator, a water turbine and/or any other suitable power source. The UAV 108 is operable to charge the one or more batteries providing a secondary power supply for the base station 102 using at least one of the one or more power sources in or accessible by the UAV 108).
Claim(s) 5,12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokrushin (US 20220007213) In view of Shelton (US 20100090532) in view of Yang (US20180312072).
As to claims 5, 12, and 20 Mokrushin in view of Shelton teaches the method of claim 1, the server of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of 15, wherein the preparing comprises:
charging a plurality of batteries (([0025] [0052] and Fig. 2 S210. If a primary power supply for the base station 102 ..is predicted to fail, a UAV may be deployed to the base station 102 to charge batteries providing the secondary power supply for the base station 102), and wherein a charge associated with each battery of the plurality of batteries (charge in each battery of the base stations)
Mokrushin in view of Shelton does not disclose/teach wherein a charge associated with each battery of the plurality of batteries is at least one of transferred to or shared with a fixed battery.
Yang teaches wherein a charge associated with a battery is at least one of transferred to or shared with a fixed battery ([0071] the charging-discharging device 32 in the vehicle 30 could be used for charging the battery 22 in the home 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charge associated with each battery of the plurality of batteries to be at least one of transferred to or shared with a fixed battery in order to service or charge another battery in the base station preventing deep discharge.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokrushin (US 20220007213) In view of Shelton (US 20100090532) in view of Emadi (US 20140129040).
As to claims 7 and 14, Mokrushin in view of Shelton teaches the method of claim 1 the server of claim 8.
Mokrushin in view of Shelton does not disclose/teach automatically controlling electrical loads at the location by setting a level at which one or more of the electrical loads consume power.
Emadi teaches automatically controlling electrical loads at the location by setting a level at which one or more of the electrical loads consume power (see, e.g., para [0012] - "at least one power load located at said facility, said at least one power load being controlled by said controller;"; para [0067] - "The controller also uses the prediction data, cost of electricity data, information on operational costs of the microgrid elements, user preferences and other data in order to make 'optimal' decisions with respect to the operation of the micro-grid. These include ... operation of smart appliances. Optimality is measured with respect to a set of user-defined objectives that can include the overall cost of electricity for the user, peak shaving, load shifting, ……, PHEV charging, and scheduling constraints of electric AC loads. The controller makes the power dispatch and load scheduling decisions at a specified time-step (e.g. 5 min to 1 h) …).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and server of Mokrushin in view of Shelton to automatically controlling electrical loads at the location by setting a level at which one or more of the electrical loads consume power in order to make 'optimal' decisions with respect to the operation of the primary power source.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached on 5712722312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights