DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 06/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
To begin, the Applicant argues that Bridges and Saussele, whether considered individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the limitation reciting: “in response to a determination that the energy demand at the second time is less than or equal to the threshold amount, sending a second command from the computer device to a processor of the second location, wherein the second command controls the second location to use a second amount of energy equivalent to the first amount of energy.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bridges teaches that a power flow manager coordinates the behavior of multiple power resources by issuing commands to individual devices or sets of devices within its pool in order to achieve aggregate behavior across the resources that matches the request (Bridges ¶¶[0219]–[0221]). Bridges further discloses that the magnitude of a regulation command can be apportioned among resources proportionally based on their capacity (Bridges ¶[0221]). In other words, this proportional division results in commands directing one resource to use an amount of energy equivalent to that used by another resource when their relative ranges align.
In addition, Bridges describes bi-directional regulation wherein resources are set to consume energy at a baseline (e.g., 50%) and then adjust consumption upward or downward in response to AGC commands (Bridges ¶[0222]). In this context, when the system determines that energy demand at a given time is below a threshold (e.g., surplus power), the AGC command directs resources to increase consumption to a level that is equivalent to the previously commanded baseline level of other resources. The Examiner finds such disclosure directly corresponds to the claim’s recitation of “sending a second command … wherein the second command controls the second location to use a second amount of energy equivalent to the first amount of energy.”
Moreover, the Applicant argues that Bridges and Saussele, whether considered individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the limitation reciting: “in response to the increase [in energy demand] being detected at the first time, sending a first command from the computer device to a processor of the first location, wherein the first command controls a battery at the first location to automatically store a first amount of energy.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Saussele teaches the use of local energy storage, such as a high-capacity on-site battery system, that is controlled by a switching device configured to manage charging and discharging operations (Saussele ¶¶[0129]–[0130]). The switching device includes a dedicated charge mode, whereby the system charges the local battery by drawing power from the DC bus in response to control signals. Saussele further discloses that the excess capacity of the local battery beyond its reserved emergency backup is used for beneficial strategies such as demand response and peak load reduction (Saussele ¶[0129]).
Likewise, Saussele discloses that demand response is triggered in response to an increase in energy demand at a location. At the time of such an increase in demand, the system responds by issuing a control command through the switching device to place the battery in charge mode. In doing so, the battery automatically stores a first amount of energy as part of the system’s coordinated response.
Therefore, the Examiner finds, Saussele teaches a system that detects an increase in energy demand at a given time, responds by sending a command to the battery’s processor via the switching device, and causes the battery to automatically store energy at the location. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this disclosure to correspond directly to the claimed limitation. Applicant’s contention that Saussele fails to disclose or suggest this feature is not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues that Bridges is silent regarding any determination of energy demand at a subsequent time in relation to a threshold amount, and further argues that Bridges does not disclose or suggest that a second command would be issued based on such a threshold determination.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bridges discloses that the power flow manager continuously evaluates power demand conditions and issues commands to resources in response to those evaluations. For example, Bridges teaches that when actual consumption deviates from predicted levels, the system determines whether there is a shortfall or surplus of produced electricity (Bridges ¶¶[0218]–[0219]). That determination functions as a threshold comparison (i.e., if consumption falls below a balance point, a surplus exists AND if consumption exceeds the balance point, a shortfall exists).
Bridges further explains that regulation commands are issued in response to these determinations. For instance, in the case of surplus demand below the balance threshold, resources are commanded to increase energy use, while in the case of a shortfall above the balance threshold, resources are commanded to reduce consumption or provide additional energy (Bridges ¶¶[0220]–[0222]). These commands represent the “second command” recited in the claims, as they are issued after the subsequent determination of energy demand relative to the threshold.
Therefore, the Examiner finds Bridges discloses both the determination of energy demand at subsequent times relative to a threshold amount and the issuance of a command to resources based on that determination. Applicant’s argument that Bridges fails to disclose or suggest these features is therefore not persuasive.
Moreover, Applicant argues that Bridges does not disclose or suggest that any resource is controlled to match a previous energy use amount based on a later determined threshold comparison.
The Examiner has considered this argument but is unsure of the precise claim limitation to which Applicant refers. The Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant identify the specific limitation at issue so that the Examiner may fully and accurately address the argument on the record.
Additionally, Applicant requests clarification of the power meter of Saussele. The Examiner notes that the intended reference in the rejection was to Bridges, not Saussele.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Saussele does not teach or suggest that a computer device external to the switching device monitors for changes and sends targeted control commands to effectuate energy storage at a specific location.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Saussele discloses that the local energy storage device is integrated into a system that includes a DC bus, a DC power supply, and associated control circuitry (Saussele ¶¶[0129]–[0131]). Saussele further teaches that the switching device is not a standalone, autonomous component but operates under the direction of the broader system controller, which is configured to monitor operating conditions and issue commands that control charging and discharging of the energy storage device. The switching device executes those commands by entering charge, discharge, or no power flow modes (Saussele ¶[0130]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this disclosure to reflect a computer device external to the switching device that monitors demand conditions and directs the switching device to initiate energy storage at the appropriate location. The switching device functions as the actuator, while the higher-level controller provides the monitoring and targeted command functionality. Accordingly, Saussele teaches or at least suggests the use of an external computer device to monitor for changes and to send commands effectuating storage of energy at a particular location.
Lastly, the Applicant argues throughout the response that the combination of Bridges and Saussele is not possible, would require a fundamental redesign, and lacks a proper motivation. These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Examiner maintains that the combination set forth in the rejection is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As previously explained, Bridges and Saussele are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely energy management systems that coordinate distributed resources such as storage, generation, and load devices in response to grid conditions. Bridges addresses power regulation and distribution of commands to resources, while Saussele discloses local energy storage and control through switching devices to manage demand response and peak load reduction. Both references are concerned with managing energy consumption and storage across distributed resources to maintain stability and efficiency.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the teachings of Bridges and Saussele may be reasonably combined. Bridges provides the overarching control framework for issuing commands to resources in response to threshold determinations of energy demand. Saussele provides detailed disclosure of how a local storage device can be controlled via a switching device to implement charging and discharging strategies. Combining these teachings does not require fundamental redesign but represents the routine application of complementary technologies to achieve predictable results.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridges et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2019/0061535 (hereinafter, Bridges), in view of Saussele et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0006253 (hereinafter, Saussele).
Regarding Claim 1, Bridges describes a method, comprising:
-at a first time, detecting by a computer device an increase in energy demand of a first location and a second location, wherein the first location is different than the second location (detecting an increase in a power load at a location (i.e., first location, such as a residence), which is different than another location (i.e., second location, such as a parking lot), Bridges, Paragraphs 0218-0223; 0183-0191 and Figures 1, 5, 12, and 19); …
-at a second time later than the first time, detecting by the computer device that the energy demand of the first location and the second location is greater than the energy demand of the first location and the second location at the first time;
-comparing the energy demand of the first location and the second location to a threshold amount by the computer device (detecting an increase in a power load at a location (i.e., first location, such as a residence) and another location (i.e., second location, such as a parking lot), Bridges, Paragraphs 0218-0223; 0183-0191 and Figures 1, 5, 12, and 19); and
-in response to a determination that the energy demand at the second time is less than or equal to the threshold amount, sending a second command from the computer device to a processor of the second location, wherein the second command controls the second location to use a second amount of energy equivalent to the first amount of energy (if the energy is below a threshold amount (e.g., below power thresholds like shorts that causes built in tripping to protect the grid system and avoid blackouts), a controller can set another amount for the second location to use a desired amount of power that is equivalent to the first amount of energy (e.g., power balancing of the system), Bridges, Paragraphs 0218-0223; 0183-0198, and Figures 1, 5, 12, and 19).
Bridges does not specifically disclose the method to include that in response to the increase being detected at the first time, sending a first command from the computer device to a processor of the first location, wherein the first command controls a battery at the first location to automatically store a first amount of energy.
Saussele discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Saussele describes the ability to receive a command to inform a battery at a first location to store energy (Saussele, Paragraphs 0129-0132 and Figures 2 and 3).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Bridges to include in response to the increase being detected at the first time, sending a first command from the computer device to a processor of the first location, wherein the first command controls a battery at the first location to automatically store a first amount of energy, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Saussele.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because charging a battery system at a location can allow for benefits such as peak load reduction (Saussele, Paragraphs 0129).
Regarding Claim 2, Bridges, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, comprising: controlling the first location to consume the first amount of energy when the second location consumes the second amount of energy (directing, via a power controller, such that the location to consume the first amount of charge when the second amount of charge is being consumed at another location, this is the same as having multiple power sources being directed as needed (e.g., power balancing of the system), Bridges, Paragraphs 0218-0223; 0183-0198, and Figures 1, 5, 12, and 19).
Regarding Claim 3, Bridges, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, comprising: throttling the use of the first amount of energy by at the first location and the use of the second amount of energy by the second location (power controller can throttle the power consumption to save power (i.e., load control to avoid rolling black outs and power balancing of the system), Bridges, Paragraphs 0218-0223; 0183-0198, and Figures 1, 5, 12, and 19).
Regarding Claim 4, Bridges, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, comprising: throttling the use of the second amount of energy by the second location so that a total amount of energy used by the second location is equivalent to the first amount of energy (power controller can control the power amount used, such that the charge amount used is similar to the amount used at locations (e.g., battery power amounts and power balancing of the system), Bridges, Paragraphs 0218-0223; 0183-0198, and Figures 1, 5, 12, and 19).
Regarding Claim 5, Bridges, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the energy demand of the first location and the second location being determined to be greater than the threshold amount, sending a second command to the processor of the second location by the computer device, wherein the second command controls the second location to use a second amount of energy less than the first amount of energy (power controller can control the power amount used, such that the charge amount used at locations differs if above say a threshold like peak-energy demand which would cause brown-outs or battery power amounts available (e.g., power balancing of the system), Bridges, Paragraphs 0218-0223; 0183-0198, and Figures 1, 5, 12, and 19).
Regarding Claim 6, Bridges, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the battery is in a transport, and wherein the method further comprises: maneuvering the transport from the first location to the second location to deliver a portion of the first amount of energy to the second location (the ability for electrical storage (e.g., battery system) to be moved to another location as desired, such as when the energy use is greater than the elevated energy use, Bridges, Paragraphs 0129-0132 and Figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 7, Bridges, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, comprising: transferring a first portion of the first amount of energy from transport at the first location to the battery; and maneuvering the transport to the second location to deliver a second portion of the first amount of energy (the ability for electrical storage (e.g., battery system) to be moved to another location as desired, such as when the energy use is greater than the elevated energy use, Bridges, Paragraphs 0129-0132 and Figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 8, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667