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 .
Amendment(s) and Claim Status
In the Amendment filed March 4, 2026, claims 1, 5 and 6 were amended and claim 2 was canceled. Claims 1 and 3-6 have been presented for further consideration and are pending.
Response to Arguments
In the response, the terminology has been amended to further note exchange points/positions of energy respective of the subject microgrids. As such, applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. Arguments relative to the cited art are directed to newly filed amendments not yet considered by the examiner. As such, the following Office Action has been updated to address the amended claim language and applicant's remarks.
In the Remarks, the applicant presents the following arguments:
The Examiner has broadly construed this optimization and used it to deny the novelty of claim 2. However, …the specific limitation of claim 2, now recited in claims 1, 5, and 6 - namely, changing the control state according to changes in deviation to respond to sudden power fluctuations-is not disclosed in Chakraborty
In other words, independent claims 1, 5, and 6 as amended recite performing the "change control" specifically when "the actual value is on a side where the energy exchange is switched with respect to the target value" (e.g., when there is a risk of reverse power flow). This control trigger is for a specific purpose, such as preventing reverse power flow, and is fundamentally different from Chakraborty's objective. Chakraborty discloses a high-level optimization strategy to symmetrically balance energy surplus and deficit among multiple microgrids in a coalition, but does not teach or suggest such a trigger condition for dynamically changing the control content in a real-time feedback loop.
With regards to the above mentioned arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In employing a method for optimizing the exchange of power to resources with the greatest need for power from those with the most availability, the reference focuses on engaging a version of game theory as a matching technique used in pairing microgrids. A coalition of microgrids are used to optimize power exchange between microgrids while minimizing the effect on the community/coalitions of microgrids - optimally, the grid with maximum available power [supply] is linked to grid with maximum power requirements [loads]. The system relies on a controller for facilitating the exchange, wherein the deviation between the actual value vs target value increases/decreases respective of the pairing of grids (see fig. 3 and section 3). As such, the deviation increases when interfaced with a coalition member with less supply and decreases vice versa. The following action has been updated to address the presented amendments.
Examiner notes that during the examination process, claim language is considered in broad terms, whereby careful consideration is taken to view claim language in light of the specification, and not read details of the specification into the submitted claim language (see MPEP 2111).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chakraborty et al., “Real-time Energy Exchange Strategy of Optimally Cooperative Microgrids for Scale-Flexible Distribution System” (available to the public February 2015, hereinafter CHAKRABORTY).
As per claim 1 (Currently Amended), CHAKRABORTY teaches of a power control device that controls an operation of a power adjustment device in a microgrid capable of exchanging energy with an external power system, the microgrid including the power adjustment device adjusting an internal power usage (see fig. 1 and sect. 2, pg. 4644: the system uses energy controller units (ECUs) and intelligent aggregators to adjust power within the microgrid in light of respective coalition units, wherein excessive power and/or demanded power is monitored and adjusted to meet predetermined settings for energy producers as well as consumers on the grid), the power control device comprising:
a control unit that controls the power adjustment device such that an actual value of the energy exchange with the external power system is close to a target value (see pg. 4644 and sect. 2: real-time and near real-time power assessments are captured and compared with predetermined [target] settings, wherein the controllers use various actionable steps to ensure that the system meet predetermined power needs); and,
in a case in which the actual value is on a side where the energy exchange is switched with respect to the target value and a state of the energy exchange changes such that a deviation between the target value and the actual value becomes larger, performs change control to change a content of control such that an amount of change in the deviation increases (see fig. 3; and sect. 2-2.3, and sect. 3 and 3.2: the system acts to achieve optimal use of energy with the grid while minimizing the impact on the coalition of microgrids, wherein game theory is employed in matching supply and demand systems and deviation between elements increase/decrease as a result of the matching of elements, whereby the system attune to the individual needs of elements within the grid, such that an increase in demand from a device/system on the grid is met, while distribution is continually maximized with minimized effect on the grid coalition).
Claim 2 (Canceled)
As per claim 3, CHAKRABORTY teaches of the power control device according to claim 1, wherein the change control is control to change the content of the control to a second condition in a case in which the deviation between the target value and the actual value is larger than a threshold value (see sect. 3-3.2: when threshold values are determined, the system maintains optimal distribution while meeting predetermined needs by assessing grid conditions, cost parameters and energy timing status, amongst other equilibrium techniques to ensure conditions are met).
As per claim 4, CHAKRABORTY teaches of the power control device according to claim 1, wherein the change control is control to continuously change the content of the control according to the deviation between the target value and the actual value (see sect. 2 and sect. 3: the system continually monitors timed system and component status parameters, and uses several optimizing techniques to ensure optimal energy distribution and equilibrium conditions are met).
As per claim 5 (Currently Amended), CHAKRABORTY teaches of a power control method that controls an operation of a power adjustment device in a microgrid capable of exchanging energy with an external power system, the microgrid including the power adjustment device adjusting an internal power usage (see fig. 1 and sect. 2, pg. 4644: the system focuses on a method for using energy controller units (ECUs) and intelligent aggregators to adjust power within the microgrid with respect to coalition units, wherein excessive power and/or demanded power is monitored and adjusted to meet predetermined settings for energy producers as well as consumers on the grid), the power control method comprising:
controlling the power adjustment device such that an actual value of the energy exchange with the external power system is close to a target value (see pg. 4644 and sect. 2: real-time and near real-time power assessments are captured and compared with predetermined [target] settings, wherein controllers are employed in implementing various actionable steps to ensure that the system meet predetermined power needs); and
in a case in which the actual value is on a side where the energy exchange is switched with respect to the target value and a state of the energy exchange changes such that a deviation between the target value and the actual value becomes larger, performing change control to change a content of control such that an amount of change in the deviation increases (see fig. 3; and sect. 2-2.3, and sect. 3 and 3.2: the system employs game theory in matching supply and demand systems, wherein deviation between elements increase/decrease as a result of the matching elements, and as such, the system addresses demand within the grid elements, such that an increase in demand from a device/system on the grid is met while distribution is continually maximized while minimizing the effect on the grid coalition).
As per claim 6, CHAKRABORTY teaches of a non-transitory storage medium storing a power control program (see sect. 2.1: system uses software to monitor the system, capture data, facilitate comparable activity and manage control elements used in optimizing distribution and maintaining an equilibrium energy field) that causes a computer to control an operation of a power adjustment device in a microgrid capable of exchanging energy with an external power system, the microgrid including the power adjustment device adjusting an internal power usage (see fig. 1 and sect. 2, pg. 4644: the system focuses on a method for using energy controller units (ECUs) and intelligent aggregators to adjust power within the microgrid respective of coalition units, wherein excessive power and/or demanded power is monitored and adjusted to meet predetermined settings for energy producers as well as consumers on the grid), the power control program causing the computer to execute:
controlling the power adjustment device such that an actual value of the energy exchange with the external power system is close to a target value (see pg. 4644 and sect. 2: real-time and near real-time power assessments are captured and compared with predetermined [target] settings, wherein controllers are employed in implementing various actionable steps to ensure that the system meet predetermined power needs); and
in a case in which the actual value is on a side where the energy exchange is switched with respect to the target value and a state of the energy exchange changes such that a deviation between the target value and the actual value becomes larger, performing change control to change a content of control such that an amount of change in the deviation increases (see fig. 3; and sect. 2-2.3, and sect. 3-3.2: the system employs a computer implemented method wherein game theory is employed in matching supply and demand systems, wherein deviation between elements increase/decrease as a result of the matching elements, and as such, the system addresses demand within the grid elements, such that an increase in demand from a device/system on the grid is met while distribution is continually maximized while minimizing the effect on the grid coalition)..
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Majumder et al., “Power Management and Power Flow Control with Back-to-Back Converters in a Utility Connected Microgrid” and Inamura et al., “Energy Management System for Local Production of Renewable Energy for Local Consumption”, focus on introducing and managing hybrid sources of energy to different grid environments and managing the distribution of resources based on demand and environmental conditions.
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.
The applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the examiner if further clarifications are needed with respect to interpretation of currently presented claims and/or cited prior art.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN BOOKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7827. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/Kelvin Booker/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights