DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s communication filed 12/11/2025.
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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art have been fully considered but are respectfully moot in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
In addition, applicant argues on Page 9 of the Remarks that Nakayama must necessarily fail to teach the limitations “automatically generating in the control plane a plurality of different software-defined virtual controllers for remotely controlling via a communication network an operation of a corresponding distributed energy resources (DER) in the physical plane”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in the 103 rejections below, Nakayama is not deficient in teaching virtual controllers that remotely control, via a communication network, the operation of a DER. See at least ¶ 27, 31-37, which discuss the network communication in the disclosed “virtual power plant”. Nakayama is deficient in teaching that the plurality of virtual controllers are each different, with each comprising functions for meeting operating parameters of a particular DER among a plurality of DERs. Brissette is now relied upon, instead of Fu, in the 103 rejections of the independent claims to more clearly show that such a modification to the teachings of Nakayama would have been obvious in view of the prior art of record. Applicant’s arguments in view of Fu are therefore moot.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA (US 2017/0207633 A1) in view of BRISSETTE (US 2020/0259329 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, NAKAYAMA teaches a software-defined control (SDC)-enabled microgrid system to control a microgrid, comprising: (¶ 20-21, Figs. 1-2: a “virtual power plant” is a software-defined control enabled microgrid system.)
a physical plane including a plurality of distributed energy resources (DERs), (¶ 35-36, Fig. 2: Distributed energy resources include wind turbines, PV solar cells, and batteries)
the DERs being operatively coupled together via a bus; (¶ 36, 45, 81, Figs. 1, 3A: the DERS are electrically coupled together via an electrical grid., which would include a bus. They are also communicatively coupled to a controller server.)
and a control plane including: at least one virtual controller running on a hardware server in the control plane, (¶ 26-27, Fig. 2: A “VPP controller server” and “VPP client server” are equivalent to a control plane having at least one virtual controller running on a hardware server)
the virtual controller including a plurality of software-defined functional modules configured to control one or more parameters of the microgrid; (¶ 26-28, 57-59: A plurality of software-defined functional modules, including a “VPP DR schedule” and a “PV/curtailment module”, configured to control one or more parameters of the microgrid are included within the virtual controllers.)
a system analysis module in operative communication with the physical plane, the system analysis module being configured to generate system analytics information as a function of operational information obtained from at least a subset of the DERs in the physical plane; (¶ 59-60, 63, 65, 45-47: Operational information, including operating statuses, charge level, and environmental conditions, are obtained from the DERs and used by a “controller event module” (i.e. a system analysis module) to generate analytics information, including load predictions and a renewable energy generation forecast.)
and an SDC manager coupled with the virtual controller and the system analysis module, the SDC manager being configured to automatically generate in the control plane… software-defined virtual controllers… for remotely controlling via a communication network an operation of… at least a subset of the DERs in the physical plane as a function of the system analytics information. (¶ 60, 63, 95-101: An “adjustment engine”, i.e. a controller manager, automatically generates or executes an objective algorithm using the load prediction data and energy forecast data (i.e. system analytics information) to determine control parameters for controlling the operation of at least a subset of the DERs in the physical plane, which includes DERs on the supply side and the prosumer side.
¶ 27, 31-37: A communications network couples the physical plane consisting of the DERs and the control plane, which receives the operation status and other measurements from the DERs. Control signals to the DERs are sent over the communication network.)
NAKAYAMA does not explicitly teach generating a plurality of different software-defined virtual controllers each comprising one or more functions associated with prescribed requirements for remotely controlling via a communication network an operation of a corresponding distributed energy resource (DER) (Note: The portions that are not underlined are taught by NAKAYAMA but are left to provide context. NAKAYAMA teaches software-defined virtual controllers that remotely control, over a communication network, the operation of DERs in a physical plane of the microgrid as discussed above. NAKAYAMA is deficient in teaching that the plurality of virtual controllers are each different, with each comprising functions for meeting operating parameters of a particular DER in a plurality of DERs.)
However, BRISSETTE, which is similarly directed to a distributed microgrid system (¶ 9, 12-13), teaches a plurality of different software-defined virtual controllers each comprising one or more functions associated with prescribed requirements for remotely controlling via a communication network an operation of a corresponding distributed energy resource (DER) (¶ 13, 15-17, Figs 1-2: A plurality of virtual controllers 192, 194, 196, 198 include controllers for a singular DER and controllers for an aggregate group of DERs. The controllers are software-defined, distributed controllers and are not necessarily local to a substation which the DER it controls is connected. The DER controllers remotely communicate with a corresponding DER or group of DERs. ¶ 31, 33, 40, and 42 discuss controlling an operation of a corresponding DER, including meeting prescribed requirements, such as the energy demand specific to a DER and the resulting energy price.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the management system for a microgrid with separate physical asset and virtual control planes taught by NAKAYAMA by generating a plurality of different virtual controllers for remotely controlling corresponding DERs as taught by BRISSETTE. Since the references are similarly directed to a distributed management system for a microgrid, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to including distributed controllers that specifically control certain DERs. As taught by BRISSETTE (¶ 2), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement an architecture where a DER in a group of DERs corresponds to a particular controller that can meet operating constraints as well as grant control authority to distribution network operators.
Regarding Claim 6, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE further teaches wherein the system analysis module is configured to monitor an operation of at least a subset of DERs in the physical plane, to determine whether the operation of the subset of DERs conforms to prescribed operating requirements of the microgrid, and to generate at least one control signal supplied to the SDC manager for autonomously instantiating one or more virtual controllers as needed to meet the prescribed operating requirements of the microgrid. (NAKAYAMA, ¶ 28, 46, 65, 101-103: Prescribed operating requirements of the microgrid includes a demand of the microgrid. Based on operating status and other variables obtained from the DERs, the system analysis module, which is the “controller event module”, determines whether the DERs conform to the operating requirements and generates control signals to be communicated to client side virtual controllers of the DERs for controlling the DERs to operate at the prescribed operating requirements.)
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 7, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE further teaches wherein the physical plane is coupled to the control plane via the communication network for transmitting measurements regarding operation of the at least a subset of the DERs in the physical plane to the system analysis module in the control plane. (NAKAYAMA, ¶ 27, 31-33: A communications network couples the physical plane consisting of the DERs and the control plane, which receives the operation status and other measurements from the DERs.)
Regarding Claim 9, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE further teaches wherein the SDC manager is configured to instantiate, on the hardware server, one or more of the virtual controllers as a function of prescribed operating requirements of the microgrid. (NAKAYAMA, ¶ 28, 46, 65, 101-103: Based on the demand and other operating requirements of the DERs on the microgrid, a controller function is initiated for controlling the operation of the DERs.)
Regarding Claim 11, NAKAYAMA teaches a software-defined control (SDC) method of controlling a microgrid, the method comprising: (¶ 20-21, Figs. 1-2: a “virtual power plant” is a software-defined control enabled microgrid system.)
initializing a microgrid SDC library included in an SDC manager of a control plane associated with the microgrid; (¶ 65: A database, or library, is initialized with real-time device information of devices on a microgrid, such as operating statuses. The database is in communication with a “VPP controller server”, which is a software-defined controller manager included in a control plane of the microgrid.)
automatically installing… software-defined virtual controllers on at least one hardware general computing device in the control plane… (¶ 38, 44-49: A software-defined virtual controller, namely a “VPP DR event schedule” is installed on at least one hardware device in the control plane, which is the VPP controller server and associated VPP client servers.)
…a physical plane of the microgrid… (¶ 35-36, Fig. 2: Distributed energy resources include wind turbines, PV solar cells, and batteries)
and executing the virtual controllers on the general computing device in the control plane, each of the virtual controllers receiving state information from a corresponding distributed energy resource (DER) residing in the physical plane of the microgrid, (¶ 59-60, 63, 65, 45-47: State information, including operating statuses, charge level, and environmental conditions, are obtained from the DERs and used by a “controller event module” to determine the control signals for controlling the DERs.)
each of the virtual controllers transmitting one or more control signals to the corresponding DER for remotely controlling via a communication network at least one operating parameter of the DER as a function of the state information received from the corresponding DER. (¶ 60, 63, 65, 95-98: Using the load prediction data and energy forecast data and other state information, control parameters are determined for controlling the operation of each DER.
¶ 27, 31-37: A communications network couples the physical plane consisting of the DERs and the control plane, which receives the operation status and other measurements from the DERs. Control signals to the DERs are sent over the communication network.)
NAKAYAMA does not explicitly teach installing a plurality of different software-defined virtual controllers… the plurality of virtual controllers each comprising one or more functions for meeting prescribed operating parameters of corresponding distributed energy resources (DERs) in a physical plane of the microgrid. (Note: The portions that are not underlined are taught by NAKAYAMA but are left to provide context. NAKAYAMA teaches software-defined virtual controllers that remotely control, over a communication network, the operation of DERs in a physical plane of the microgrid as discussed above. NAKAYAMA is deficient in teaching that the plurality of virtual controllers are each different, with each comprising functions for meeting operating parameters of a particular DER in a plurality of DERs.)
However, BRISSETTE, which is similarly directed to a distributed microgrid system (¶ 9, 12-13), teaches a plurality of different software-defined virtual controllers… the plurality of virtual controllers each comprising one or more functions for meeting prescribed operating parameters of corresponding distributed energy resources (DERs) in a physical plane of the microgrid. (¶ 13, 15-17, Figs 1-2: A plurality of virtual controllers 192, 194, 196, 198 include controllers for a singular DER and controllers for an aggregate group of DERs. The controllers are software-defined, distributed controllers and are not necessarily local to a substation which the DER it controls is connected. The DER controllers remotely communicate with a corresponding DER or group of DERs. ¶ 31, 33, 40, and 42 discuss controlling an operation of a corresponding DER, including meeting prescribed requirements, such as the energy demand specific to a DER and the resulting energy price.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the management system for a microgrid with separate physical asset and virtual control planes taught by NAKAYAMA by generating a plurality of different virtual controllers for remotely controlling corresponding DERs as taught by BRISSETTE. Since the references are similarly directed to a distributed management system for a microgrid, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to including distributed controllers that specifically control certain DERs. As taught by BRISSETTE (¶ 2), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement an architecture where a DER in a group of DERs corresponds to a particular controller that can meet operating constraints as well as grant control authority to distribution network operators.
Claim 18 is directed to a computer program product but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 11. Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 14, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE further teaches wherein a network protocol is utilized for communication between each of the virtual controllers and the corresponding DER in the microgrid. (NAKAYAMA, ¶ 27, 31-33: A communications network couples the physical plane consisting of the DERs and the control plane, which receives the operation status and other measurements from the DERs.)
Regarding Claim 15, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE further teaches further comprising: the SDC manager receiving status information relating to an operation of each of at least a subset of DERs in the microgrid; and the SDC manager instantiating or removing at least one virtual controller executing on the general computing device as a function of increased or decreased demand in the microgrid. (NAKAYAMA, ¶ 45-46, 65, 102-105: Operating status information of the DERs is stored in a database and used to determine the demand in the microgrid. Based on determining an increase or decrease in demand, appropriate DERs are controlled to provide the needed energy.)
Regarding Claim 19, NAKAYAMA teaches an apparatus to control a microgrid, the apparatus comprising: (¶ 20-21, Figs. 1-2: a “virtual power plant” is a software-defined control enabled microgrid system.)
at least one virtual controller running on a hardware server associated with the apparatus, (¶ 26-27, 44-49, Fig. 2: A “VPP controller server” and “VPP client server” are equivalent to a control plane having at least one virtual controller running on a hardware server)
the virtual controller including a plurality of software-defined functional modules configured to control one or more parameters of the microgrid, (¶ 26-28, 57-59: A plurality of software-defined functional modules, including a “VPP DR schedule” and a “PV/curtailment module”, configured to control one or more parameters of the microgrid are included within the virtual controllers.)
the virtual controller being in operative communication with a corresponding distributed energy resource (DER) in a physical plane of the microgrid; (¶ 36, 45, 81, Figs. 1, 2: the physical DERS are communicatively coupled to a corresponding controller server with corresponding control modules.)
a system analysis module in operative communication with the physical plane, the system analysis module being configured to generate system analytics information as a function of at least one operational information obtained from at least a subset of the DERs and prescribed operating parameters of the microgrid; (¶ 28, 45-47, 59-60, 63, 65: Operational information, including operating statuses, charge level, and environmental conditions, are obtained from the DERs and used by a “controller event module” (i.e. a system analysis module) to generate analytics information, including load predictions and a renewable energy generation forecast. Prescribed operating parameters include a demand of the microgrid.)
and a software-defined control (SDC) manager coupled with the virtual controller and the system analysis module, the SDC manager being configured to automatically instantiate in a control plane associated with the grid… software-defined virtual controllers… for remotely meeting over a communication network the prescribed operating parameters of… the DERs in the physical plane of the microgrid as a function of the system analytics information; (¶ 60, 63, 95-98: An “adjustment engine”, i.e. a controller manager, automatically generates or executes an objective algorithm using the load prediction data and energy forecast data Ii.e. system analytics information) to determine control parameters for controlling the operation of at least a subset of the DERs in the physical plane, which includes DERs on the supply side and the prosumer side.
¶ 27, 31-37: A communications network couples the physical plane consisting of the DERs and the control plane, which receives the operation status and other measurements from the DERs. Control signals to the DERs are sent over the communication network.)
NAKAYAMA does not explicitly teach instantiating a plurality of different software-defined virtual controllers each comprising one or more functions for remotely meeting over a communication network the prescribed operating parameters of a corresponding distributed energy resource (DER) in the at least a subset of the DERS of the physical plane of the microgrid (Note: The portions that are not underlined are taught by NAKAYAMA but are left to provide context. NAKAYAMA teaches software-defined virtual controllers that remotely control, over a communication network, the operation of DERs in a physical plane of the microgrid as discussed above. NAKAYAMA is deficient in teaching that the plurality of virtual controllers are each different, with each comprising functions for meeting operating parameters of a particular DER in a plurality of DERs.)
However, BRISSETTE, which is similarly directed to a distributed microgrid system (¶ 9, 12-13), teaches a plurality of different software-defined virtual controllers each comprising one or more functions for remotely meeting over a communication network the prescribed operating parameters of a corresponding distributed energy resource (DER) in the at least a subset of the DERS of the physical plane of the microgrid (¶ 13, 15-17, Figs 1-2: A plurality of virtual controllers 192, 194, 196, 198 include controllers for a singular DER and controllers for an aggregate group of DERs. The controllers are software-defined, distributed controllers and are not necessarily local to a substation which the DER it controls is connected. The DER controllers remotely communicate with a corresponding DER or group of DERs. ¶ 31, 33, 40, and 42 discuss controlling an operation of a corresponding DER, including meeting prescribed requirements, such as the energy demand specific to a DER and the resulting energy price.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the management system for a microgrid with separate physical asset and virtual control planes taught by NAKAYAMA by generating a plurality of different virtual controllers for remotely controlling corresponding DERs as taught by BRISSETTE. Since the references are similarly directed to a distributed management system for a microgrid, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to including distributed controllers that specifically control certain DERs. As taught by BRISSETTE (¶ 2), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement an architecture where a DER in a group of DERs corresponds to a particular controller that can meet operating constraints as well as grant control authority to distribution network operators.
Regarding Claim 20, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE further teaches wherein the apparatus resides in a control plane of the microgrid and is fully decoupled from the physical plane of the microgrid. (NAKAYAMA, ¶ 32, 45-46: The “VPP controller server” is communicatively coupled to the DERs. The DERs are not electrically coupled to the controller server. The apparatus for controlling the microgrid is therefore decoupled from the physical plane. This is similar to applicant’s disclosure in ¶ 37-38.)
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA (US 2017/0207633 A1) in view of BRISSETTE (US 2020/0259329 A1) and further in view of FU (US 2019/0326755 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 3 depends.
NAKAYAMA does not teach wherein each of at least a subset of the software-defined functional modules in the virtual controller includes at least one backup software-defined module to provide redundancy for safeguarding against failure of a corresponding functional module.
However, FU, which is similarly directed to a system controller that controls a plurality of control functions corresponding to assets on an electrical grid, teaches wherein each of at least a subset of the software-defined functional modules in the virtual controller includes at least one backup software-defined module to provide redundancy for safeguarding against failure of a corresponding functional module. (¶ 25: “According to the control architecture described above, the microgrid system controller 510 can be a dual redundant controller with hot-standby functionality such that a standby controller automatically takes over active control of the microgrid in case of primary controller failure.” A controller in a microgrid system includes a redundant controller for safeguarding against controller failure.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the demand monitoring and control between a virtual controller server and physical DERs taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE by including a redundant controller as taught by FU. Since the references are similarly directed to electrical grid control, the combination would have yielded predictable results. It would have been advantageous for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include redundant controllers for the reason taught by FU of accounting for the case of controller failure. FU (¶ 26) also teaches an advantage of such a system to a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that the plurality of local controllers would “provide semi-autonomous, fast device control, maintain operation within connected equipment limits and provide local sequencing and alarm management”.
Regarding Claim 12, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE teaches all the limitations of claim 11, on which claim 12 depends.
NAKAYAMA does not teach further comprising the SDC manager instantiating at least one backup virtual controller for each of at least a subset of the one or more software-defined virtual controllers, the backup virtual controller providing redundancy for a corresponding one of the software-defined virtual controllers.
However, FU, which is similarly directed to a system controller that controls a plurality of control functions corresponding to assets on an electrical grid, teaches further comprising the SDC manager instantiating at least one backup virtual controller for each of at least a subset of the one or more software-defined virtual controllers, the backup virtual controller providing redundancy for a corresponding one of the software-defined virtual controllers. (¶ 25: “According to the control architecture described above, the microgrid system controller 510 can be a dual redundant controller with hot-standby functionality such that a standby controller automatically takes over active control of the microgrid in case of primary controller failure.” A controller in a microgrid system includes a redundant controller for safeguarding against controller failure.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the demand monitoring and control between a virtual controller server and physical DERs taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE by including a redundant controller as taught by FU. Since the references are similarly directed to electrical grid control, the combination would have yielded predictable results. It would have been advantageous for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include redundant controllers for the reason taught by FU of accounting for the case of controller failure. FU (¶ 26) also teaches an advantage of such a system to a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that the plurality of local controllers would “provide semi-autonomous, fast device control, maintain operation within connected equipment limits and provide local sequencing and alarm management”.
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA (US 2017/0207633 A1) in view of BRISSETTE (US 2020/0259329 A1) and further in view of ROUSIS (US 2023/0260058 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 2 depends.
While NAKAYAMA teaches controlling operation of a plurality of DERs according to a demand on the microgrid and teaches a database which stores operational information related to the plurality of DERs, NAKAYAMA does not teach wherein the system analysis module comprises at least one of an Eigenvalue analysis module, a formal/reachability analysis module, a transient stability module, a power flow calculation module, and a parameters learning module, and wherein at least a portion of the system analytics information is used by the SDC manager to update an SDC library included in the SDC manager, the SDC library being configured to store prescribed parameters for instantiating each of the virtual controllers based on prescribed requirements of corresponding DERs.
However, BRISSETTE teaches wherein the system analysis module comprises at least one of an Eigenvalue analysis module, a formal/reachability analysis module, a transient stability module, a power flow calculation module, and a parameters learning module, (¶ 22-23, 42: A power flow optimization process is executed by a distribution network controller.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the virtual controllers for controlling a plurality of DERs on a microgrid taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE by including a power flow optimization calculation as taught by BRISSETTE. Since NAKAYAMA is also directed to managing the demand, including of power, on the microgrid (See ¶ 27), the combination would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by BRISSETTE (¶ 22), such an implementation would allow the system to consider and adjust for “power flow conditions such as phase imbalance, network congestion, over-voltage conditions or other operating constraint excursions for the distribution network.”
Furthermore, ROUSIS, which is directed to a control system for an electrical grid, including DERs, teaches and wherein at least a portion of the system analytics information is used by the SDC manager to update an SDC library included in the SDC manager, the SDC library being configured to store prescribed parameters for instantiating each of the virtual controllers based on prescribed requirements of corresponding DERs. (¶ 72, 78, 104, Figs. 5A-5B: Analytics information and solutions to control algorithms (i.e. prescribed parameters) are stored in a database. This information is used to create control loops for corresponding energy assets (i.e. DERs) on an electrical grid. Real-time controllers corresponding to the energy assets are loaded with the control loops and initiated for real-time measurement and control. It would have been obvious for this data to be stored in a database associated with a controller manager, such as the database linked to the virtual controller server in Fig. 2 of NAKAYAMA. A database is equivalent to a library.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual controller server with database for storing data related to the control of DERs in a microgrid taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE by incorporating the teachings of ROUSIS by including a library of prescribed parameters for instantiating virtual controllers associated with each DER. Since the references are similarly directed to the control of multiple energy assets on a microgrid, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by ROUSIS (¶ 6, 104), such a combination would “contribute to the continuous, adaptive and real-time controllability of the system as a whole.”
Regarding Claim 8, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 8 depends.
NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE does not teach wherein the virtual controller comprises an outer loop module and an inner loop module, the outer loop module including a frequency control module, a power control module operatively coupled with the frequency control module, and a voltage control module, the frequency control module, power control module and voltage control module being configured to regulate a frequency, a power output and a voltage, respectively, of the microgrid.
However, ROUSIS, which is directed to a control system for an electrical grid, including DERs, teaches wherein the virtual controller comprises an outer loop module and an inner loop module, (¶ 104, Fig. 5A-5B: The “dynamic coupling framework” is equivalent to an “inner loop”, while the outer loop is the “unified control loops” for controlling the multiple energy resources.)
the outer loop module including a frequency control module, a power control module operatively coupled with the frequency control module, and a voltage control module, the frequency control module, power control module and voltage control module being configured to regulate a frequency, a power output and a voltage, respectively, of the microgrid. (¶ 78-79, 82, 91: The unified control loop includes voltage, power, and frequency control algorithms.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of DERs in a microgrid using virtual controllers taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE by using a unified control loop to control the voltage, power, and frequency parameters of the microgrid as taught by ROUSIS. Since the references are similarly directed to control of multiple energy resources in an electrical grid, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by ROUSIS (¶ 79), “Beneficially, the unified control loops capture all dynamic features of participating assets in conjunction with the desired characteristic at a specific point of a network”.
Regarding Claim 10, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 10 depends.
NAKAYAMA further teaches wherein the SDC manager comprises a software-defined library coupled with the system analysis module (¶ 65: A database, or library, is initialized with real-time device information of devices on a microgrid, such as operating statuses. The database is in communication with a “VPP controller server”, which is a software-defined controller manager included in a control plane of the microgrid.)
NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE does not teach, the software-defined library storing a configuration table for providing the SDC manager reference to select a given control module from the library for implementing a corresponding function associated with an operation of the microgrid.
However, ROUSIS, which is directed to a control system for an electrical grid, including DERs, teaches the software-defined library storing a configuration table for providing the SDC manager reference to select a given control module from the library for implementing a corresponding function associated with an operation of the microgrid. (¶ 74, 79, 104, Fig. 5A: A control mode is identified and a corresponding objective function is selected for controlling a parameter, such as voltage or power, associated with the control mode. Since there are multiple objective functions, it would have been obvious for those functions to be stored in a database, such as a library having a table.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual controller server with database for storing data related to the control of DERs in a microgrid taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE by incorporating the teachings of ROUSIS by including a library of objective functions related to an identified control mode. Since the references are similarly directed to the control of multiple energy assets on a microgrid, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by ROUSIS (¶ 6, 104), such a combination would optimize the system based on multiple objective functions and “contribute to the continuous, adaptive and real-time controllability of the system as a whole.”
Regarding Claim 17, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE teaches all the limitations of claim 11, on which claim 17 depends.
NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE does not teach further comprising storing a configuration table in the SDC library of the SDC manager, the configuration table providing the SDC manager reference to decide which virtual control module to select from the SDC library as a function of one or more characteristics of the DERs.
However, ROUSIS, which is directed to a control system for an electrical grid, including DERs, teaches further comprising storing a configuration table in the SDC library of the SDC manager, the configuration table providing the SDC manager reference to decide which virtual control module to select from the SDC library as a function of one or more characteristics of the DERs. (¶ 74, 79, 104, Fig. 5A: A control mode is identified and a corresponding objective function is selected for controlling a parameter, such as voltage or power, associated with the control mode. Since there are multiple objective functions, it would have been obvious for those functions to be stored in a database, such as a library having a table.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual controller server with database for storing data related to the control of DERs in a microgrid taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE by incorporating the teachings of ROUSIS by including a library of objective functions related to an identified control mode. Since the references are similarly directed to the control of multiple energy assets on a microgrid, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by ROUSIS (¶ 6, 104), such a combination would optimize the system based on multiple objective functions and “contribute to the continuous, adaptive and real-time controllability of the system as a whole.”
Claims 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA (US 2017/0207633 A1) in view of BRISSETTE (US 2020/0259329 A1) and further in view of FU (US 2019/0326755 A1) and LAW (US 2021/0089015 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU teaches all the limitations of claim 3, on which claim 4 depends.
NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE does not teach a corresponding backup software-defined module when a failure event is detected in the given functional module that takes over control when a failure event is detected in the given functional module.
However, FU teaches a corresponding backup software-defined module when a failure event is detected in the given functional module that takes over control when a failure event is detected in the given functional module. (FU, ¶ 25: The status of upstream and downstream controllers are monitored. In the event of a failure, a standby controller takes over active control.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 3 applies to claim 4.
However, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU does not explicitly teach wherein the SDC manager is configured to control a transfer of states from a given software-defined functional module in the virtual controller to a corresponding backup software-defined module when a failure event is detected in the given functional module.
However, LAW, which is directed to a software-defined network architecture for a control system, teaches wherein the SDC manager is configured to control a transfer of states from a given software-defined functional module in the virtual controller to a corresponding backup software-defined module when a failure event is detected in the given functional module. (¶ 76, 96: When a failure event is detected, the redundancy module receives the same inputs, outputs, and setpoints (i.e. the states) as the control module that failed.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inclusion of a redundant virtual controller module in a microgrid controller system taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU by including a transfer of states from the failed control module to the redundancy module as taught by LAW. Since the references are similarly directed to software-defined control system architectures, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by LAW (¶ 21), such an implementation is advantageous for “reducing the complexity of the control system and reducing the effort required to configure or update the system architecture. Load balancing and failover functionality are also improved by implementing the software-defined process controllers as virtual DCS controllers in a server group, such that redundant virtual DCS controllers may be implemented in the various servers of the server group in a resource-efficient manner”.
Regarding Claim 5, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU teaches all the limitations of claim 3, on which claim 5 depends.
NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU does not teach wherein a given software-defined functional module in the virtual controller runs on a first hardware server and the backup software-defined functional module runs on a second hardware server that is different from the first server.
However, LAW, which is directed to a software-defined network architecture for a control system, teaches wherein a given software-defined functional module in the virtual controller runs on a first hardware server and the backup software-defined functional module runs on a second hardware server that is different from the first server. (¶ 76, 96: When a failure event is detected, control of a process is shifted from a virtual controller operating on a first server to another instance of the virtual controller operating on a second server. Another redundant controller is then initiated on a third server to account for the possibility of subsequent failure of the second server.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inclusion of a redundant virtual controller module in a microgrid controller system taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU by running the control modules and redundant modules on different servers as taught by LAW. Since the references are similarly directed to software-defined control system architectures, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by LAW (¶ 21), such an implementation is advantageous since “Load balancing and failover functionality are also improved by implementing the software-defined process controllers as virtual DCS controllers in a server group, such that redundant virtual DCS controllers may be implemented in the various servers of the server group in a resource-efficient manner”. LAW (¶ 96) also teaches software-defined functional modules should be implemented on multiple different servers to account for a potential series of server failure events.
Regarding Claim 13, NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU teaches all the limitations of claim 12, on which claim 13 depends.
FU further teaches further comprising: the SDC manager receiving status information relating to an operation of each of at least a subset of software-defined virtual controllers for determining whether a failure event has occurred; (FU, ¶ 25: The status of upstream and downstream controllers are monitored. In the event of a failure, a standby controller takes over active control.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 12 applies to claim 13.
NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU does not teach and transferring state information associated with a given one of the software-defined virtual controllers determined to have failed to a corresponding backup virtual controller; and establishing communication between a DER associated with the given virtual controller determined to have failed and the corresponding backup virtual controller to resume operation of the DER.
However, LAW, which is directed to a software-defined network architecture for a control system, teaches and transferring state information associated with a given one of the software-defined virtual controllers determined to have failed to a corresponding backup virtual controller; and establishing communication between a DER associated with the given virtual controller determined to have failed and the corresponding backup virtual controller to resume operation of the DER. (¶ 76, 96: When a failure event is detected, control of a process is shifted from a virtual controller operating on a first server to another instance of the virtual controller operating on a second server. The backup controller on the second server therefore resumes the control operation. In combination with NAKAYAMA and FU, this would be operation of a DER. Another redundant controller is then initiated on a third server to account for the possibility of subsequent failure of the second server. When a failure event is detected, the redundancy module receives the same inputs, outputs, and setpoints (i.e. the states) as the control module that failed.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inclusion of a redundant virtual controller module in a microgrid controller system taught by NAKAYAMA in view of BRISSETTE and FU by including a transfer of states from the failed control module to the redundancy module as taught by LAW. Since the references are similarly directed to software-defined control system architectures, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by LAW (¶ 21), such an implementation is advantageous for “reducing the complexity of the control system and reducing the effort required to configure or update the system architecture. Load balancing and failover functionality are also improved by implementing the software-defined process controllers as virtual DCS controllers in a server group, such that redundant virtual DCS controllers may be implemented in the various servers of the server group in a resource-efficient manner”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson (US 10,298,016 B1) teaches a DER aggregation management system for controlling operation of a plurality of DERs, including network communication of the control signal. (Fig. 1, Col. 4:44-58)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118