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 Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/8/2025.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are canceled. Claims 6-11 and 13-25 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have fixed the deficiencies set forth in the previous Office Action hence the respective rejections/objections have been withdrawn, except for those rejections/objections if still maintained or newly added in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims 6, 13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C § 102, the arguments have been fully considered but deemed moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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 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.
Claim 6, 11, 13, 19, 20, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp (US 20080278000 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Capp”) in view of Kerrigan (US 12136815 B2, hereinafter as “Kerrigan”).
Regarding claim 6, Capp teaches:
A method for stabilizing an island mode in an energy hub, the method comprising:
providing an energy hub (mini-grid 20 in FIG. 1 and [0038]) having an electrical infrastructure;
providing a number of generators of electrical energy (DG 40, 42, 44 and 46 in FIG. 1 and [0038]) and a plurality of consumers of electrical energy (loads 50, 52 and 54 in FIG. 1 and [0038]) connectable to and disconnectable from the electrical infrastructure, the plurality of consumers comprising at least one critical consumer of electrical energy and at least one non-critical consumer of electrical energy ([0060]);
disconnecting the energy hub from the grid to establish island mode (step 114 in FIG. 3 and [0052]);
supplying the electrical infrastructure with electrical energy from at least some generators among the number of the generators of electrical energy (FIG. 1, [0022] and [0059-0060]: in the islanding/isolation mode, the loads and DGs are monitored to provide “load-matching”, i.e., at least some DGs supply electrical energy to the mini-grid 20);
using the electrical energy by means of at least some consumers of the plurality of consumers, so as to provide passive damping of fluctuations in voltage and frequency ([0028] and [0060]: non-critical loads are used to “balance the loads” to provide passive damping for frequency and voltage);
monitoring at least the voltage and frequency of the electrical energy in the electrical infrastructure ([0028]); and
selectively disconnecting and/or reconnecting one or more of the non-critical consumers of electrical energy in response to at least the monitored frequency falling outside predetermined nominal values ([0043]: to achieve “acceptable ranges” for frequency and voltage), so as to maintain the frequency of the electrical energy within predetermined nominal values ([0028], [0055-0056] and [0060]: steps 132, 142, 140 and 148 in FIG. 5).
Capp teaches all the limitations except selectively disconnecting and/or reconnecting one or more of the non-critical consumers of electrical energy in response to at least the monitored voltage falling outside predetermined nominal values, so as to maintain the voltage of the electrical energy within the predetermined nominal values.
However, Kerrigan teaches in an analogous art:
Selectively changing one or more of the consumers of electrical energy in response to at least the monitored voltage falling outside predetermined nominal values, so as to maintain the voltage of the electrical energy within the predetermined nominal values ([Claim 8]: “A power grid configured to regulate a frequency and a voltage of a power grid, comprising: a load manager, wherein load manager is configured to perform actions comprising: receiving, from a plurality of devices connected to the power grid, load-change capacity information at the load manager; creating revised device configurations based at least in part on the load-change capacity information; and sending the revised device configurations to the plurality of devices to change electrical demand from the power grid; a device, from among the plurality of devices, connected to the power grid, configured to perform actions comprising: receiving, by operation of the device connected to the power grid, a frequency limit and a voltage limit sent by the load manager; measuring, by operation of the device, a frequency of a power main and a voltage of the power main; comparing, by operation of the device, the measured frequency to the frequency limit and the measured voltage to the voltage limit; calculating, by operation of the device, an adjustment to an electrical load of the device based at least in part on the comparing; and changing, by operation of the device, the electrical load of the device based on the calculated adjustment”. This teaches to selectively change the loads of a power grid to maintain its voltage to be within predetermined limits).
Since Capp teaches in [0028] and [0060] that non-critical loads are used to “balance the loads” to provide passive damping for frequency and voltage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp based on the teaching of Kerrigan, to make the method to further comprise selectively disconnecting and/or reconnecting one or more of the non-critical consumers of electrical energy in response to at least the monitored voltage falling outside predetermined nominal values, so as to maintain the voltage of the electrical energy within the predetermined nominal values. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help “regulate a frequency” of the power grid, as Kerrigan in [Claim 8].
Regarding claim 11, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Capp further teaches:
forming a local grid by at least one generator (FIG. 1 and [0038]: the local mini-grid 20 comprises generators 40, 42, 44 and 46) or battery energy storage system.
Claim 13 recites a method similar to the method of claim 6 with similar limitations. Capp also teaches the additional limitations “designating at least one critical consumer of electrical energy from the electrical infrastructure” ([0060]: “Preferably at least one of the loads connected to the mini-grid is considered of lower priority, or a non-critical load “. This teaches to designate non-critical and critical load”) and “supplying the electrical infrastructure, and the at least one critical consumer, with electrical energy from at least some generators of electrical energy within the energy hub” ([0028] and [0060]: the DG sources supply electrical energy to the mini-grid comprising non-critical and critical loads). Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected for the reasons recited in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 19 recites a method as the method of claim 11 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 20 recites a method similar to the method of claim 13 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Capp further teaches:
supplying the electrical infrastructure with electrical energy from another generator of electrical energy within the energy hub (step 150 in FIG. 5 and [0056]: “Alternatively or additionally, to increase power generation, it is possible to bring online another DG source (step 150)”) and monitoring the voltage and frequency of said electrical energy in said electrical infrastructure ([0028]).
Regarding claim 25, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Capp further teaches:
the generators of electrical energy within the energy hub supplying the electrical infrastructure with electrical energy are less than all of the generators of electrical energy within the energy hub (FIG. 1 and [0038] teach the mini-grid comprises “any number or combination” of generators. Step 150 FIG. 5 and [0056] teach to add one more generator to produce more power. The control loop continues until all the generators are added to provide power, before which not all generators are supplying electrical power).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp in view of Kerrigan, and in further view of Melink (US 20210302198 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Melink”).
Regarding claim 7, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach wherein the non-critical consumers comprise one or more consumers selected from the group consisting of battery chargers, electrolytic separators, mechanical energy storage, and thermal storage.
However, Melink teaches in an analogous art:
the non-critical consumers comprise one or more consumers selected from the group consisting of battery chargers ([0055]: “The non-critical loads associated with the building 110 may include but are not limited to the HVAC for comfort 250, hot water for comfort 260, the lights for comfort 270, the EV chargers 280, and/or any other non-critical load that will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant art(s) without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure”), electrolytic separators, mechanical energy storage, and thermal storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan based on the teaching of Melink, to make the method wherein the non-critical consumers comprise one or more consumers selected from the group consisting of battery chargers, electrolytic separators, mechanical energy storage, and thermal storage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “The EV chargers 280 are not essential to the day to day operations of the building 110 and the day to day activities of the occupants of the building 110 and the controller 205 may execute graduated actions to significantly decrease the energy consumption of the EV chargers 280 as needed …”, as Melink teaches in [0055].
Claim 15 recites a method as the method of claim 7 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp in view of Kerrigan, and in further view of PARK (KR 20130074320 A, prior art of record, hereinafter as “PARK”).
Regarding claim 10, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach the energy hub is a wind farm comprising offshore wind turbine generators.
However, PARK teaches in an analogous art:
a wind turbine comprising offshore wind turbine generators (FIG. 2 and [Abstract] teach offshore wind power generator).
Since Capp teaches, in FIG. 1 and [0038], the energy hub comprises “any number” of “wind rubine 42”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan based on the teaching of PARK, to make the method wherein the energy hub is a wind farm comprising offshore wind turbine generators. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since the offshore wind turbine generators can catch winds at sea and convert them into electrical power.
Claim 18 recites a method as the method of claim 10 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp in view of Kerrigan, and in further view of Hafner (US 20170201077 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Hafner”).
Regarding claim 14, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach the at least one critical consumer is a monitoring computer, a control computer, or a control system.
However, Hafner teaches in an analogous art:
critical consumer is a monitoring computer, a control computer, or a control system ([0073]: “The containerized microgrid may comprise a solar array, battery bank and genset that support critical and non-critical loads. Critical loads may comprise a fan, PC-power & site controller, container lights, electric water pump, fuel pump, fire extinguishing system, AC unit for thermals, sensor surveillance and camera system and components of the communications system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan based on the teaching of Hafner, to make the method wherein the at least one critical consumer is a monitoring computer, a control computer, or a control system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since critical loads like control computer and/or monitoring computer is performing critical functions.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp in view of Kerrigan, and in further view of Dean (US 6239513 B1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Dean”).
Regarding claim 21, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on. Capp also teaches the non-critical consumers are to assist in damping of fluctuations in frequency and voltage. But Capp-Kerrigan do not teach each of the plurality of non-critical consumers represents a resistive load.
However, Dean teaches in an analogous art:
non-critical consumers represents a resistive load ([Col. 12 Lines 36-41]: “… will provide this commercial power to load 41 which is preferably made up of non-critical loads such as resistive loads like heaters and lights”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan based on the teaching of Dean, to make the method wherein each of the plurality of non-critical consumers represents a resistive load. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since resistive load does not cause phase change between voltage and current.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp in view of Kerrigan, and in further view of Wasilewski (US 6652330 B1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Wasilewski”).
Regarding claim 22, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach the plurality of non-critical consumers are disconnected and/or reconnected as a group.
However, Wasilewski teaches in an analogous art:
plurality of non-critical consumers are disconnected and/or reconnected as a group ([Col. 8 Lines 5-10]: “if the electrical loads are grouped according to two or more categories of criticality (e.g. critical and non-critical), the present invention could be instructed to disconnect all non-critical loads whenever the battery voltage falls below the threshold voltage magnitude”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan based on the teaching of Wasilewski, to make the method wherein the plurality of non-critical consumers are disconnected and/or reconnected as a group. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since turning off all non-critical loads can help save power.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp in view of Kerrigan, and in further view of Kouno (US 20160156195 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Kouno”).
Regarding claim 23, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach the plurality of non-critical consumers are disconnected and/or reconnected individually.
However, Kouno teaches in an analogous art:
plurality of non-critical consumers are disconnected and/or reconnected individually ([0051]: “a non-prioritized load is selected in the ascending order of power consumption and a process for identifying the selected non-prioritized load as the connection target is repeatedly performed as long as the total power consumption of this selected non-prioritized load and the loads identified as the connection targets is not greater than the above described upper output limit”. This teaches the non-critical loads are not connected/disconnected as a group, instead are connected/disconnected individually based on an order of power consumption).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan based on the teaching of Kouno, to make the method wherein the plurality of non-critical consumers are disconnected and/or reconnected as a group. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help ensure “power can be supplied within the range of output capacity of the power source supply device”, as Kouno teaches in [Abstract].
Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capp in view of Kerrigan and Melink, and in further view of PARK.
Regarding claim 8, Capp-Kerrigan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach at least some of the non-critical consumers are located offshore.
However, Melink teaches in an analogous art:
Non-critical consumers comprise battery charger ([0055]: “The non-critical loads associated with the building 110 may include but are not limited to the HVAC for comfort 250, hot water for comfort 260, the lights for comfort 270, the EV chargers 280, and/or any other non-critical load that will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant art(s) without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan based on the teaching of Melink, to make the method wherein at least some of the non-critical consumers comprise battery chargers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “The EV chargers 280 are not essential to the day to day operations of the building 110 and the day to day activities of the occupants of the building 110 and the controller 205 may execute graduated actions to significantly decrease the energy consumption of the EV chargers 280 as needed …”, as Melink teaches in [0055].
Capp-Kerrigan-Melink teach all the limitations except the battery chargers are located offshore.
However, PARK teaches in an analogous art:
the battery chargers are located offshore (transportable battery charger 60 in FIG.2 and [Abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan-Melink based on the teaching of PARK, to make the method wherein at least some of the non-critical consumers are located offshore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help save “time required for installation” and “cost” to take advantage of offshore power generator, as PARK suggests in [BACKGRPUND-ART].
Regarding claim 9, Capp-Kerrigan-Melink teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but don’t teach at least some of the non-critical consumers are located offshore.
However, PARK teaches in an analogous art:
the battery chargers are located offshore (transportable battery charger 60 in FIG.2 and [Abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Capp-Kerrigan-Melink based on the teaching of PARK, to make the method wherein at least some of the non-critical consumers are located offshore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help save “time required for installation” and “cost” to take advantage of offshore power generator, as PARK suggests in [BACKGRPUND-ART].
Claims 16 and 17 recite a method as the method of claims 8 and 9 respectively with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claims 8 and 9, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Thomas Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. 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.
/CHARLES CAI/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115