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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Examiner decided to withdraw 101 and 112 rejection because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments on page 8, applicants argue “Koguma and Marchegiani address fundamentally different problems in different timeframes. Koguma is concerned with prospective planning, while Marchegiani is concerned with immediate, real-time system control. Therefore, there would have been no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Koguma, which focuses on future planning, with Marchegiani, which focuses on present system control.”. Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue have been set forth. The level of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to be a person who is presumed to be aware of all prior art, specifically relating to control. The rejection is based on what was known prior to the time the Applicant created the invention and rest on a factual basis, and supported by the motivation as noted in the above office action. Under such considerations, the prior art teaches the claims as written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koguma USPGPUB 2020/0358290 (hereinafter “Koguma”) in view of Marchegiani et al. USPGPUB 20190341781 A1 (hereinafter “Marchegiani”).
As to claim 1, Koguma teaches an operation plan creation device that creates an operation plan for a load device in a microgrid including a renewable energy generation device and the load device, the operation plan including a plan for performing a start operation or a stop operation of the load device, the operation plan creation device (paragraph 0010-0014 and FIG. 1-2) comprising: at least one processor configured to: execute a program to set an optimization problem that models a physical constraint of the microgrid (paragraph 0055-0060 and paragraph 0003-0006), create the operation plan by solving the optimization problem, and create the operation plan on the basis of information related to a prediction value of power generated in the renewable energy generation device for an entire creation period of the operation plan, information related to power consumption characteristics of the load device (paragraph 0024-0033).
But Koguma does not explicitly teach information related to power consumption necessary only for the start operation or the stop operation of the load device included in the operation plan.
However, Marchegiani teaches information related to temporary power consumption necessary for the start operation or the stop operation of the load device included in the operation plan (paragraph 0120-0128).
Koguma and Marchegiani are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above energy management system, as taught by Koguma, and incorporating fault condition, as taught by Marchegiani.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to preserve the stability of the system, it is therefore necessary that the active and reactive power generated or absorbed in the balance node are controlled in an accurate and rapid manner to adjust the frequency and voltage in the network, as suggested by Marchegiani (paragraph 0005).
As to claim 2, Koguma and Marchegiani teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Koguma further teaches wherein the microgrid further includes an energy storage device, and the at least one processor is further configured to create the operation plan also on the basis of an amount of energy stored in the energy storage device (0008-0012).
As to claim 3, Koguma and Marchegiani teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Koguma further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to create the operation plan on condition that a time period for which the start operation or the stop operation is executable is limited (paragraph 0035-0036).
As to claim 4, Koguma and Marchegiani teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Marchegiani further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to create the operation plan on condition that upper limits of the start operation and the stop operation of the load device or the numbers of start operations and stop operations are designated (paragraph 0016-0020).
As to claim 5, Koguma and Marchegiani teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Marchegiani further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to create the operation plan on condition that a plan with smoother fluctuations in power consumption of the load device is prioritized (paragraph 0015-0017).
As to claim 6, Koguma and Marchegiani teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Marchegiani further teaches wherein the microgrid is capable of exchanging energy with an outside, and the at least one processor is further configured to create the operation plan on condition that a plan with smoother fluctuations in an amount of energy exchanged with the outside is prioritized (paragraph 0007-0014).
As to claim 7, Koguma and Marchegiani teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Koguma further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to set an optimization problem on condition that a total amount of product generated by an operation of the load device or a profit based on the product is maximized and solve the optimization problem to create the operation plan (paragraph 0013-0021).
As to claim 8, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same relations.
As to claim 9, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same relations.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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.
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DOHERTY et al. USPGPUB 20190165580 A1 a systems and methods for optimal control of one or more energy storage systems are provided. Based on live, historical, and/or forecast data received from one or more data sources, one or more forecasts of one or more parameters relating to the operation of the one or more energy storage systems and an associated forecast uncertainty may be calculated by various forecasting techniques. Using one or more optimization techniques, an optimal dispatch schedule for the operation of the one or more energy storage systems may be created based on the forecasts. The optimal dispatch schedule may be used to determine one or more energy storage system parameters, which are used to control the operation of the energy storage systems.
Hayashida USPGPUB 20120235478 A1 teaches an operation planning method performed in a system including a power generation device, a first electric load operating using power generated by the power generation device, and a second electric load which generates heat using power generated by the power generation device. The operation planning method is performed to design an operation plan for the second electric load and includes: predicting, for individual unit time periods, a power generation amount by the power generation device and a power consumption amount by the first and second electric loads; and designing the operation plan for the second electric load to operate during an operation period including the time period with the largest amount of reverse power, calculated by subtracting the first and second power consumption amounts from the power generation amount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119