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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the Double Patenting rejections made in the previous Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 9, 11, 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JELINEK US 2012/0130555 (hereinafter JELINEK) in view of Gudgel et al. US 2018/0076624 (hereinafter Gudgel).
Regarding claim 1, JELINEK teaches: a system for providing electricity to a building, the system comprising:
a first power source installed on a premises of the building, the first power source comprising:
one or more solar panel racks of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1, [0020] - - on-site solar);
one or more generators ([0025] - - combustion generators, motor generators); or
one or more fuel cells ([0025] - - fuel cell);
an enclosure installed at the premises (Fig. 1, [0025] - - NEMA type enclosures for standalone packaging; [0002] - - hybrid energy cube), wherein the enclosure at least partially encloses or comprises:
one or more batteries electrically configured to store energy ([0029] - - batteries);
one or more inverters electronically connected to the first power source and the one or more batteries and configured to convert direct current (DC) current electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity ([0029] - - DC to AC inverter);
one or more switches comprising a bypass switch and an isolation switch (Fig. 7, [0035] - - the switch unit allows the HEC to select grid AC or HEC generated AC;);
and one or more electrical wires electrically connecting the system to a main panel of the building, wherein the main panel is configured to provide power received from the system to the building ([0046] - - the AC outputs connect to circuits in the home; the connection between the switch 66 and the circuits in home is a main panel).
But JELINEK does not explicitly teach:
when the bypass switch is in a first state, the system operates in a normal mode in which power to loads of the building is provided by the first power source;
when the bypass switch is in a second state, the system operates in a bypass mode in which power to loads of the building is provided by a second power source separate from the first power source;
when the isolation switch is in the second state, the system operates in an isolation mode in which no power is provided to loads of the building or the one or more batteries from the first power source or the second power source;
when the isolation switch is in the second state, power from a second power source separate from the first power source is available to be provided to the loads of the building and the one or more batteries;
However, Gudgel teaches:
when the bypass switch is in a first state, the system operates in a normal mode in which power to loads of the building is provided by the first power source (Fig. 1, switch 141 is a bypass switch, when it is closed, generator provides power);
when the bypass switch is in a second state, the system operates in a bypass mode in which power to loads of the building is provided by a second power source separate from the first power source (Fig. 1, when the switch 141 is open, the grid provides power);
when the isolation switch is in the second state, the system operates in an isolation mode in which no power is provided to loads of the building or the one or more batteries from the first power source or the second power source (Fig. 1,switch 131 is isolation switch; when switch 131 is open, and the switches 116,119,141 are open, no power is provided to loads);
when the isolation switch is in the second state, power from a second power source separate from the first power source is available to be provided to the loads of the building and the one or more batteries (Fig. 1,switch 131 is isolation switch; when switch 131 is closed; gride power is available).
JELINEK and Gudgel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by JELINEK, and incorporating bypass and isolation switches, as taught by Gudgel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to facilitate connections to and from the home, as suggested by Gudgel ([0002]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
JELINEK further teaches: the enclosure fully encloses the one or more batteries and one or more inverters ([0018] - - the modules 20, 22 are configured to slide fit into a single master enclosure; Fig.3 shows the storage (batteries) and module 22 (which includes inverter) are in the enclosure of HEC.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
JELINEK further teaches: the enclosure is a shed-type structure (Fig. 1 shows the HEC is a shed type structure).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
JELINEK further teaches: the first power source comprises the one or more solar panel racks of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1, [0020] - - on-site solar).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
JELINEK further teaches: the first power source comprises the one or more generators ([0025] - - combustion generators, motor generators).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
JELINEK further teaches: the first power source comprises the one or more fuel cells ([0025] - - fuel cell).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JELINEK US 2012/0130555 (hereinafter JELINEK) in view of Gudgel et al. US 2018/0076624 (hereinafter Gudgel) and further in view of BRENNAN et al. US 2014/0015324 (hereinafter BRENNAN).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach:
the enclosure further comprises a disconnect configured to enable disconnection of components of the enclosure from an interconnection point of the main panel of the building or disconnection of the components of the enclosure from the first power source.
However, BRENNAN teaches:
the enclosure further comprises a disconnect configured to enable disconnection of components of the enclosure from an interconnection point of the main panel of the building or disconnection of the components of the enclosure from the first power source (Fig. 1, [0043] - - AC disconnect 32 disconnect solar from the building load panel).
JELINEK, Gudgel and BRENNAN are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating connection/disconnection of solar power to main panel, as taught by BRENNAN.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide efficient distribution of available AC power sources, as suggested by BRENNAN ([0020]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JELINEK US 2012/0130555 (hereinafter JELINEK) in view of Gudgel et al. US 2018/0076624 (hereinafter Gudgel) and further in view of KURTZ et al. US 2019/0097569 (hereinafter KURTZ).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach the one or more solar panel racks comprise sheets of the photovoltaic cells supported by ballasts on a ground surface of the premises.
However, KURTZ teaches: the one or more solar panel racks comprise sheets of the photovoltaic cells supported by ballasts on a ground surface of the premises (Fig. 1, [0053] - - solar panels and ballast to be mounted on the ground).
JELINEK, Gudgel and KURTZ are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating solar panels supported by ballast on the ground, as taught by KURTZ.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to mount solar panels, as suggested by KURTZ ([0053]).
Claims 4 – 7, 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JELINEK US 2012/0130555 (hereinafter JELINEK) in view of Gudgel et al. US 2018/0076624 (hereinafter Gudgel) and further in view of Wiers US 11,117,533 (hereinafter Wiers).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: components of the enclosure are pre- connected prior to deliver and installation of the system at the premises.
However, Wiers teaches: components of the enclosure are pre- connected prior to deliver and installation of the system at the premises (Fig. 1).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Wiers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating components being pre-connected, as taught by Wiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide emergency power conveniently, as suggested by Wiers (C1, L28-43).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: the enclosure has an externally-facing outlet for connecting one or more devices to excess load.
However, Wiers teaches: the enclosure has an externally-facing outlet for connecting one or more devices to excess load (Fig. 1 shows externally facing outlet for charging EV).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Wiers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating externally facing outlet, as taught by Wiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide emergency power conveniently, as suggested by Wiers (C1, L28-43).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: the system provides an electric vehicle (EV) charger.
However, Wiers teaches: the system provides an electric vehicle (EV) charger (Abstract - - emergency power device for charging EV).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Wiers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating charging EV, as taught by Wiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide emergency power conveniently, as suggested by Wiers (C1, L28-43).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: control and send power to an electric vehicle (EV) charger based on energy storage or load.
However, Wiers teaches: control and send power to an electric vehicle (EV) charger based on energy storage or load (C4, L60-C5, L14 - - meter monitors the energy level of batteries; the power distribution circuit controls charging EV).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Wiers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating controlling charging EV, as taught by Wiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide emergency power conveniently, as suggested by Wiers (C1, L28-43).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: the enclosure comprises a roof having a slanted portion configured to facilitate precipitation runoff..
However, Wiers teaches: the enclosure comprises a roof having a slanted portion configured to facilitate precipitation runoff (Fig. 1, C2, L64 - - triangular prism structure has a slanted portion).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Wiers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating slanted portion, as taught by Wiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide emergency power conveniently, as suggested by Wiers (C1, L28-43).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: the enclosure is located beneath at least one of the one or more solar panel racks.
However, Wiers teaches: the enclosure is located beneath at least one of the one or more solar panel racks (Fig. 1).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Wiers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating enclosure being beneath solar panels, as taught by Wiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide emergency power conveniently, as suggested by Wiers (C1, L28-43).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: the enclosure comprises heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) components configured to monitor a temperature, humidity, or another condition within the enclosure and produce heat, air-conditioning, or control the another condition based on efficiency, safety, or operation criteria.
However, Wiers teaches: the enclosure comprises heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) components configured to monitor a temperature, humidity, or another condition within the enclosure and produce heat, air-conditioning, or control the another condition based on efficiency, safety, or operation criteria (Fig. 4, C3, L59-L66 - - the fan and vent are HVAC components to control temperature of the battery circuit).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Wiers are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating enclosure with a fan, as taught by Wiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide emergency power conveniently, as suggested by Wiers (C1, L28-43).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JELINEK US 2012/0130555 (hereinafter JELINEK) in view of Gudgel et al. US 2018/0076624 (hereinafter Gudgel) and further in view of Petrosyan US 2018/0316192 (hereinafter Petrosyan).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach:
control and draw power from an electric vehicle (EV) or EV charger system based on energy storage or load.
However, Petrosyan teaches:
control and draw power from an electric vehicle (EV) or EV charger system based on energy storage or load (Fig. 2, [0067] - - monitoring device 114 determine if and when to draw power from an electric vehicle).
JELINEK, Gudgel and Petrosyan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating drawing power from EV, as taught by Petrosyan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide power during power outage, as suggested by Petrosyan ([0067]).
Claims 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JELINEK US 2012/0130555 (hereinafter JELINEK) in view of Gudgel et al. US 2018/0076624 (hereinafter Gudgel) and further in view of McCary US 2015/0171449 (hereinafter McCary).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel does not explicitly teach: the system transfers excess energy from the first power source to provide energy for the second power source.
However, McCary teaches: the system transfers excess energy from the first power source to provide energy for the second power source ([0023] - - direct the excess energy to the public utilities).
JELINEK, Gudgel and McCary are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of JELINEK and Gudgel, and incorporating directing excess to public utility, as taught by McCary.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve power generation, as suggested by McCary ([0002]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of JELINEK, Gudgel and McCary teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
McCary further teaches: the excess energy is used to generate hydrogen used in a fuel cell or combustion generator ([0037] - - the solar power is used to generate hydrogen for fuel cell).
JELINEK, Gudgel and McCary are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
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 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 YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116