The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 10/9/2025 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1 and 5 have been amended, and claim 18 has been newly added. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 17-18 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 with respect to the newly amended language have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To begin with, the applicant states “support for the amendments to the claims are found, for example, in Figs.1, 2 and 3 and the corresponding text in the specification.” (Remarks, pg.6). The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not readily apparent which switch in figs.1, 2, and 3 is the first switch. Further, the term “switch” does not appear anywhere in the specification and therefore it also does not distinguish whether switch ECM1, ECM2, or K11 is the “first switch”. The examiner requests the applicant to cite to specific citations and specific components in the drawings for support to amended language in subsequent responses.
Applicant argues that “nothing in Kamalasadan discusses an energy storage inverter that operates in three modes.” (Remarks, pg.10). The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the non-final office action (dated 7/9/2025, pgs.6-7) did not indicate that Kamalasadan teaches the energy storage inverter operates in all three modes. Instead, Kamalasadan was relied upon to teach the first autonomous mode (see non-final, pg.6, last paragraph) and the third test mode (see non-final, pg.7, first paragraph). Sugeno (2017/0070074) was relied upon for the teachings of the second variable aunotmous mode (see non-final, pg.7, penultimate paragraph). Thus, in contrast to applicant’s assertion, it is the combination of references that teach the energy storage inverter operates in three modes and not solely Kamalasadan.
Applicant further argues that “an energy storage inverter that operates in three modes selected by a controller responsive to sensed data is not disclosed or suggested by the cited combination.” (Remarks, pg.7). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kamalasadan, in par [4], states that the energy storage inverter “can thus work during grid failure/contamination, during a power quality diminishing scenario, and during normal operations with continued grid support”, par [44] states “…continuously sense power supplied by the grid 2 and power demanded by the load” as well as in par [46] that states the energy storage inverter “is capable of operating in different modes, depending on the state of utility grid. The state of the grid 2 is monitored by the controller 5, which determines the mode of the operation of the GAUPS device 1…”, and pars [57, 59] in which the controller “in response to identifying that low-power quality (e.g., power below a threshold quality level) is being supplied from the grid 2 to the load 4”, operates the energy storage inverter to supply all power from battery (3) to the load (4). That is, Kamalasadan’s controller generally takes into account the state of the grid when selecting the operations of at least the first and third modes (i.e., responsive to “sensed conditions of the electric grid”) noting that the claim does not recite a physical sensor. Furthermore, Sugeno, par [2], states that “when the power supply from an external power system (referred to as a commercial power source, a grid…) decreases by accident… the power demand becomes greater relative to the power supply…” Therefore, Sugeno takes into consideration the condition at the grid as well as load power/demand (similar to Kamalasadan). When Sugeno operates the energy storage inverter in the second mode (par [45]; load power greater than a threshold), this is done because the load power/demand is additionally greater relative to the grid and would require the storage inverter to draw power from both the grid and the battery (5). In the combination, Kamalasadan’s teachings of operating the energy storage inverter in a plurality of modes responsive to sensed grid conditions as well as power demanded by the load would further take into Sugeno’s “second mode” when selectively operating the energy storage inverter in the plurality of modes. That is, contrary to applicant’s assertion, the combination of references teaches operating all three modes responsive to sensed data (or as claim 1 recites “responsive to sensed conditions of the electric grid”).
Further, Applicant argues that nothing in Sugeno’s Fig.5 teaches amended claim 1’s “second variable autonomous where the grid interactive inverter draws power from the electric grid and from the plurality of battery backs and where the one or more auxiliary loads are provided power and isolated from operations at the electric grid using the first and/or second switches to provide a path from the grid interactive inverter to the one or more auxiliary loads.” (Remarks, pg.8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously indicated, Sugeno’s fig.5, par [45], teaches the claimed second mode where the grid interactive inverter draws power from the electric grid (inverter draws power from the grid via 3 and 5) and from the battery (6 via 7 and 4) and provides it to the load (AC2 through a closed second switch SW3) and isolated from operation at the electric grid using the first and/or switches (first switch SW2 is open, which isolates the load from the grid) to provide a path from the grid interactive inverter to the load. Therefore, in contrast to applicant’s assertions, the examiner believes that Sugeno still teaches the amended language related to the second variable autonomous mode.
In order to further expedite prosecution, the applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to recite all four switches- switches K10, K11, and ECM1, ECM2 in the grid interactive inverter- and define their respective states (i.e., open/OFF and close/ON) in each mode as shown in applicant’s figs.1-3. For example, for the first mode (corresponding to applicant’s Fig.1) teaches that the state of K11 is open, ECM1 is open, ECM2 is open, and K10 is close to provide all power from the battery packs to the load. In the second mode (corresponding to applicant’s fig.2), the state of K11 is open, ECM1 is open, ECM2 is close, and K10 is closed in order to provide the claimed path from the grid interactive inverter to the load while also isolating the loads from operations at the grid. For the third mode (corresponding to applicant’s fig.3), switch K11 is close, ECM2 is close, ECM1 is open, and K10 is open.
See below for further analysis of the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the claimed “first switch” and “second switch” have no corresponding labels and reference numbers to indicate which switch corresponds to the first switch and to the second switch in the drawings. If K11 is the first switch, then there should be an indication in the drawings that it is. The specification does not appear to distinguish between switches. Note: changes in the drawings may necessitate changes in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “a first autonomous mode where all power for the one or more auxiliary loads is provided by the plurality of battery packs by opening the first and/or second switches coupling the grid interactive inverter to the electric grid and closing the first and/or second switches coupling the one or more auxiliary nodes to the plurality of battery packs…” There is no written description support for “and/or” in relation to how the first and second switches are opened and closed. Par [0034] of applicant’s published disclosure, fig.1, clearly states that “the solid lines of Fig.1 are used to indicate an open circuit, no electricity is flowing through these lines.” That is, the states of the first and second switches are not an “and/or” choice, they are required to be in the states disclosed in par [0033], fig.1 to implement the first mode- K10 is required to be closed (it cannot also be opened), K11 and the rest of the switches are required to be opened (cannot also be closed).
Claim 1 further recites “…a second variable autonomous mode where the grid interactive inverter draws power from the electric grid and from the plurality of battery packs and wherein the one or more auxiliary loads are provided power and isolated from operations at the electric grid using the first and/or second switches to provide a path from the grid interactive inverter to the one or more auxiliary loads…” There is no written description support for “and/or” in how the first and second switches are used in the second mode to provide the claimed path. Par [0035] of applicant’s published disclosure, fig.2, clearly shows the second mode requires particular states of all switches to provide the claimed path- K11 is required to be open, ECM1 is open, ECM2 and K10 are closed. That is, the usage and states of both the first and second switches in the second mode are not an “and/or” choice.
Claim 1 further recites “a third test mode where the one or more auxiliary loads only draw power from the electric grid to test functionality of the auxiliary loads using the first and/or second switches to provide a path from the electric grid to the one or more auxiliary loads.” There is no written description support for “and/or” in how the first and second switches are used in the third mode to provide the claimed path. Par [0036] of applicant’s published disclosure, fig.3, clearly shows the third mode requires particular states of all switches to provide the claimed path- K10, ECM1 are required to be open, and K11 and ECM2 are required to be closed. That is, the usage and states of both the first and second switches in the third mode are not an “and/or” choice.
Newly presented Claim 18 recites “…wherein the first and second switches comprise one or more capacitors.” There is no written description that the first and second switches are capacitors. Applicant’s specification does not use the term “switch” or switches comprise “capacitors”. From applicant’s figures it’s not readily apparent if K10, K11, etc. are contactors or capacitors. Typically, a capacitor is not a switch unless it is a switched capacitor (combination of a switch + capacitor).
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 17 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…a first autonomous mode where all power for the one or more auxiliary loads is provided by the plurality of battery packs by opening the first and/or second switches coupling the grid interactive inverter to the electric grid and closing the first and/or second switches coupling the one or more auxiliary nodes to the plurality of battery packs…” The usage of “and/or” is indefinite, because it gives an option to both open the first and second switches and close the first and second switches, which is incorrect. It is unclear how the first and second switches can be both opened and closed to perform the functionality of the first mode in claim 1. If both first and second switches are closed, then the grid and the battery would provide power to the load (contradicts the claimed functionality in the first mode). If both first and second switches are open, then no power would be provided to the load. The applicant is encouraged to precisely claim the correct states of each switch as shown in applicant’s fig.1. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood (see rejection below).
Claim 1 recites “a second variable autonomous mode where the grid interactive inverter draws power from the electric grid and from the plurality of battery packs and wherein the one or more auxiliary loads are provided power and isolated from operations at the electric grid using the first and/or second switches… The usage of “and/or” is indefinite, because it gives an option of using the either the first “or” the second switch (i.e., one or the other)- however, both switches would be required for the inverter to be able to draw power from the grid and the battery and isolate the load from the grid. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood, in particular, using both the first and second switches (see rejections below).
Claim 1 recites “a third test mode where the one or more auxiliary loads only draw power from the electric grid to test functionality of the auxiliary loads using the first and/or second switches to provide a path from the electric grid to the one or more auxiliary loads.” The usage of “and/or” is indefinite, because it is unclear how the first “or” second switch can implement the test functionality of the third mode when both are required (K10 open, K11 closed) for the load to only draw power from the grid. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood, in particular, using both the first and second switches to implement the functionality of the third mode (see rejections below).
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 17-18 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “coupling the one or more auxiliary nodes…” This should instead be “auxiliary loads”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “…the first and/or second switches coupling the one or more auxiliary nodes to the plurality of battery packs...” There is no antecedent basis for “coupling the or more auxiliary loads to the plurality of battery packs.” Claim 1 makes no mention of how the switches connect to any part of the battery packs. And, as fig.1 of applicant shows, all power from the battery packs must pass through the grid interactive inverter- there is no direct battery to switch connection anywhere.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamalasadan et al. (2022/0216726 A1) in view of Sugeno et al. (2017/0070074 A1) in further view of Navarro et al. (2020/0274367 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kamalasadan teaches an energy storage inverter (see for e.g., item 1 in fig.2) coupled to an electric grid (2), the energy storage inverter comprising:
a processor (fig.11, processor “P”) in communication with the energy storage inverter (par [56] and related discussion; processor performs operations to control the components in the energy storage inverter (i.e., it is in communication with the energy storage inverter);
a grid interactive inverter (items 1b, 1c) coupled to the electric grid (2);
a battery pack (item 3) coupled to the grid interactive inverter (see fig.2);
a first switch (1f) between the grid interactive inverter and the electric grid (2, see fig.2);
a second switch (1e) between the grid interactive inverter and one or more auxiliary loads (4, see fig.2);
wherein the one or more auxiliary loads (4) are coupled to and decoupled from the grid interactive inverter using one or more (alternative recitation) of the first and second switches (1e, fig.2, when 1e is closed/ON, load 4 is coupled to the grid interactive inverter and when 1e is open/OFF, load 4 is decoupled from the grid interactive inverter); and
wherein the energy storage inverter including the grid interactive inverter and the battery pack provides reliable power to the one or more auxiliary loads (4) utilizing the battery pack (pars [31, 51]; the energy storage inverter including 1c of the grid interactive inverter and the battery back 3 utilizes the battery pack to provide “reliable” power to the load 4 noting that the “wherein” clause is narrative language and is a benefit that is produced by the preceding structure. Since Kamalasadan anticipates the structure, it anticipates this benefit), wherein the energy storage inverter operates in a plurality of modes (for e.g., plurality of modes shown in figs.7, 10, etc.); and
an energy inverter control module (for e.g., see figs.1 and 11, “memory”, “operating system”, “Computer Readable Program Code”) in communication (via data bus B) with the processor (fig.11, “processor P”) that selectively operates the energy storage inverter in the plurality of modes responsive to sensed conditions of the electric grid (2, pars [35, 44, 46, 56, 59] and related discussion; “a GAUPS device can be operated in different modes, which depend on the overall health of the utility grid“, “…may cause the processor(s) P to perform any of the operations illustrated in the flow chart of Fig.12”, “continuously sense power supplied by the grid 2 and power demanded by the load”, “GAUPS 1 is capable of operating in different modes, depending on the state of the utility grid 2. The state of the grid 2 is monitored by the controller 5, which determines the mode of the operation…”, “…in response to identifying that low-quality power (e.g., power below a threshold quality level) is being supplied from the grid 2 to the load 4…)” Thus, Kamalasadan teaches implementing the plurality of modes responsive to sensed conditions of the electric grid. It is further noted that the claim does not recite a sensor to detect the conditions of the grid; only that they are sensed), wherein the plurality of modes comprise:
a first autonomous mode where all power for the one or more auxiliary loads (4) is provided by the battery pack by opening the first and/or second switches coupling the grid interactive inverter to the electric grid (2) and closing the first and/or second switches coupling the one or more auxiliary loads (4) to the battery pack (3, Kamalasadan, fig.10, pars [51-52, 56, 59]; all power for load 4 is provided by the battery pack 3 by opening switch 1f and closing switch 1e. Note: the term “autonomous” is a label and does not impart any structure into the claim. Since Kamalasadan teaches the claimed definition of “first autonomous mode”, the prior art teaches an “autonomous” mode);
a third test mode where the one or more auxiliary loads (4) only draw power from the electric grid (2) to test functionality of the one or more auxiliary loads using the first and/or second switches to provide a path from the electric grid (2) to the one or more auxiliary loads (fig.7, pars [35, 46]; The one or more aux loads 4 only draw power from the electric grid 2 by opening switch 1e and closing switch 1f when the grid does not demand ancillary services and grid side inverter 1b and the batteries remain inactive to provide path from the grid to the load 4. Note: the claim recites “test” mode, which is nominal/a label defined by power only being drawn from the grid- this is taught by Kamalasadan).
Kamalasadan further teaches wherein the one or more auxiliary loads are isolated from operations at the electric grid by opening switch 1f (pars [36, 48]).
Kamalasadan, however, does not explicitly disclose a second variable autonomous mode where the grid interactive inverter draws power from the electric grid and from the battery pack and wherein the one or more auxiliary loads are provided power and isolated from operations at the electric grid using the first and/or second switches to provide a path from the grid interactive inverter to the one or more auxiliary loads.
Sugeno (fig.5), however, teaches a second variable autonomous mode where the grid interactive inverter draws power from the electric grid (fig.5, par [45], input to 1; the grid interactive inverter draws power from the grid via 3 and 5) and from the battery pack (fig.5, par [45], from 6 via 7 and 4) and wherein the one or more auxiliary loads (at the output 2) are provided power (AC2 through a closed second switch SW3) and isolated from operations at the electric grid using the first and/or second switches (fig.5, par [45]; the load at output 2 provided power AC2 through a closed second switch SW3 and isolated from operations at the grid to input 1 by opening first switch SW2) to provide a path from the grid interactive inverter to the one or more auxiliary loads (par [45]; closing switch SW3 and opening switch SW2 provides a path from the grid interactive invert to the load).
In the combination, Kamalasadan that generally takes into account the state of the grid and the power demanded by the load when selecting the mode operations of the energy storage inverter would be modified to further include Sugeno’s second mode so that when the load power/demand is greater than a threshold relative to the grid, the energy storage inverter draws power from both the grid and the battery pack but isolates the load from the grid.
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 the teachings of the combination to that of Sugeno. The motivation would have been to provide an additional load management mode to Kamalasadan’s system that ensures the auxiliary load receives stable, conditioned power while optimizing both the grid and battery in situations where the consumption of the load/load power is above a threshold relative to the grid.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a plurality of battery packs.
Navarro (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to utilize a plurality of battery packs (130) coupled to the energy storage inverter (110). Additionally, Navarro, similar to Kamalasadan, further teaches the energy storage inverter (110) provides reliable power to the one or more auxiliary load utilizing the plurality of battery packs (par [16]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of modified Kamalasadan to that of Navarro of having a plurality of battery packs instead of just one. The motivation would have been the obviousness of duplicating a battery pack to have multiple battery packs that can provide sufficient energy and redundancy- if one battery pack fails or underperforms, the others can continue to provide energy storage and maintain system reliability. Moreover, having a plurality of battery packs can deliver the necessary power without exceeding the limits of any single battery pack.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the grid interactive inverter regulates power to and from the electric grid (Kamalasadan, pars [27, 49-50]; Kamalasadan teaches the grid interactive inverter regulates power to grid 2, for e.g., fig.9 and from the grid 2, for e.g., fig.8).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein during the second variable autonomous mode the one or more auxiliary loads are isolated from overvoltage using the first and/or second switches to define a path of current (Kamalasadan, pars [36, 48], Sugeno, fig.5, par [45]; Kamalasadan teaches the load is isolated from the grid by opening switch 1f under abnormal grid conditions such as grid voltage fluctuations/overvoltage. Sugeno teaches, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the load being isolated from the grid by opening switch SW2, which includes from overvoltage/ grid voltage fluctuations. Examiner Note: the claim is written in narrative language and does not include any sensors to sense the overvoltage, and where the overvoltage is sensed (i.e., is it at the grid or the load…)).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the energy storage inverter provides standby backup battery power (Kamalasadan, fig.10, pars [24, 51], Sugeno, fig.5, par [45]), energy storage and balance of energy distribution (Kamalasadan, par [27] and related discussion, Sugeno, par [45]; Kamalasadan teaches “providing grid support… is a new paradigm that uses battery energy storage along with inverters…can be used to control power grid changes and to balance the renewable energy impact on the power grid…”Sugeno similarly teaches energy storage and energy distribution balance. Note: the claim does not further structurally narrow claim 1. It is written in narrative form).
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein responsive to sensed conditions of the electric grid comprises voltages and/or currents (the recitation of “and/or” means “and” or “or”, but not both) (Kamalasadan, pars [44, 46, 51, 59] and related discussion; Kamalasadan teaches sensing power supplied by the grid and identifying the power falling below a threshold. Power comprises voltages and/or currents since power=voltage *current. Also see “when the grid 2 voltage… falls out of a predetermined range…”).
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Kamalasadan teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. Modified Kamalasadan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second switches comprise one or more capacitors.
Navarro (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art for the first switch (i.e., top line between grid at “AC input source” and the grid interactive inverter) and the second switch (i.e., bottom line between the grid interactive inverter and “AC output load”) to comprise one or more capacitors (see fig.1, the first switch and second switch each are shown to comprise a capacitor/two parallel plates identical to the ones in applicant’s fig.1- thus, Navarrao teaches the switches comprise one or more capacitors).
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 the teachings of the combination’s first and second switches to comprise one or more capacitors, as discussed within Navarro. The motivation would have been to improve performance and reduced unwanted effects like noise, transients, and inrush currents.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamalasadan et al. (2022/0216726 A1) in view of Sugeno et al. (2017/0070074 A1) in further view of Navarro et al. (2020/0274367 A1) in further view of Di Cristofaro (2015/0005975 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose that each of the plurality of battery packs include a plurality lithium ion batteries.
Di Cristofaro, however, teaches it is known in the art for a battery pack (110) to include a plurality of lithium ion batteries (par [31]; a battery bank/battery pack includes multiple lithium-ion batteries).
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 the teachings of modified Kamalasadan’s plurality of battery packs to each include a plurality of lithium ion batteries. The motivation would have been because selecting the type of battery (in this case lithium ion) is a matter of design choice that depends on performance and task. Additionally, Di Cristofaro states that the battery life in terms of charge-discharge cycles is extended for lithium ion batteries and thus one skilled in the art would have been motivated to select a plurality of lithium ion batteries for each battery pack/bank for the combination of references.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamalasadan et al. (2022/0216726 A1) in view of Sugeno et al. (2017/0070074 A1) in further view of Navarro et al. (2020/0274367 A1) in further view of Toy (6,191,500 B1).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 5 and further teaches wherein ones of the one or more auxiliary loads are critical auxiliary loads (Kamalasadan, pars [37-38]; “multiple critical loads 4”) and wherein these critical auxiliary loads always receive power during an outage experienced by the electric grid (Kamalasadan, pars [37-38]).
The combination does not explicitly disclose these critical auxiliary loads include cooling fans or systems and communication systems.
Toy, however, teaches wherein these critical auxiliary loads include cooling fans or systems (Col.4, lines 1-3; i.e., computer systems) and communication systems (Col.4, lines 1-3; i.e., communication systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied on the teachings of Toy, because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the type of critical loads that is best suitable for the intended design and application as is well-known and well-desired in the art.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and wherein the third test mode is used to test the one or more auxiliary loads (Kamalasadan, fig.7, pars [35, 46]; The test mode, as defined in claim 1, is taught by Kamalasadan in which one or more aux loads 4 only draw power from the electric grid 2 by opening switch 1e and closing switch 1f when the grid does not demand ancillary services and grid side inverter 1b and the batteries remain inactive. This power drawn only from the grid corresponds to “used to test” the one or more auxiliary loads).Modified Kamalasadan teaches the one or more auxiliary loads comprise multiple critical auxiliary loads (Kamalasadan, pars [35, 46]). However, modified Kamalasadan does not explicitly disclose the one or more critical auxiliary loads comprise one or more devices and systems.
Toy, however, teaches wherein the critical auxiliary loads comprise one or more devices and systems (Col.4, lines 1-3; computer systems/devices and communication systems, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied on the teachings of Toy to fill in the gaps in Kamalasadan and further illustrate that multiple critical loads would have obviously included one or more devices and systems as is well-known and well-desired in the art.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 7 and further teaches wherein during the third test mode, power from the electric grid is used to test the one or more devices and systems that are part of the one or more auxiliary loads (Kamalasadan, fig.7, pars [35, 46], Toy, Col.4, lines 1-3; The test mode, as defined in claim 1, is taught by Kamalasadan in which one or more aux loads 4 only draw power from the electric grid 2 by opening switch 1e and closing switch 1f. This power drawn only from the grid corresponds to “is used to test” the one or more devices and systems (as taught within Toy) that are part of the one or more auxiliary loads).
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 RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836