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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 12, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 6, perhaps the claim should read “the SoS being higher than the SUT” (see paragraph 0059 of the specification as originally filed).
In claim 12, lines 6-7, perhaps the recitation “a value of the SUT in the succeeding time step” should be changed to --the initial SUT in the succeeding time step-- as the specification as originally filed discloses they are referring to the same value (see paragraph 0087).
In claim 17, line 19, perhaps the claim should read “the SoS being higher than the SUT” (see paragraph 0059 of the specification as originally filed).
In claim 20, lines 6-7, perhaps the recitation “a value of the SUT in the succeeding time step” should be changed to --the initial SUT in the succeeding time step-- as the specification as originally filed discloses they are referring to the same value (see paragraph 0087).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is not clear how to interpret the recitation “a sum of a grid limit, of the power grid, and a current power drawn by the load, wherein the grid limit is a sum of a power imported from the power grid and an export limit” with respect to the “maximum output power of the power manager”. In particular, it is first noted that the “power imported from the power grid” is interpreted in light of the specification as being the power drawn by the load (see paragraph 0046 of the specification as originally filed). It is therefore not clear if the recitations “a current power drawn by the load’ and “a power imported from the power grid” are referring to the same or different values. If they are referring to the same values, it is not clear why the “maximum output power of the power manager” is limited by a sum including twice the current power drawn by the load. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as the “power manager” outputting a power up to its “power limit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HANSEN (US 2020/0259358).
Regarding claim 1, HANSEN discloses a system comprising:
an energy storage (24, Figs. 1A & 1B; ¶ 0049: an energy storage device 24 including multiple energy storage units 24A-24N (such as a battery array including battery units));
a storage interface (26, Figs. 1A & 1B) coupled to the energy storage and configured to charge or discharge the energy storage (¶ 0050: FIG. 1A illustrates an AC-coupled RES-ESS facility 11 that uses inverters 16, 26 to convert… power released by the energy storage device 24 to AC power for coupling to an AC electrical grid 34);
a controller (36, Figs. 1A & 1B; ¶ 0051: a RES-ESS dispatcher unit 36 has the ability to control the charge or discharge of the energy storage device 24 (e.g., batteries) by communicating with an ESS controller 22, which may be located in the RES-ESS facility 11… the RES-ESS dispatcher unit 36 receives (or generates) an accurate renewable generation forecast (e.g., solar generation forecast) that it uses to implement the CCD and other control modes; ¶ 0043: In CCD mode, an Energy Storage System (ESS) is given a schedule by which to reach a certain state of charge (SOC) by charging or discharging. For example, an ESS may be instructed to reach 100% SOC by 5 PM, and then reach 10% SOC by 10 PM) configured to:
determine a state-of-storage (SoS) (it is noted that the application discloses the “SoS” may be either SOC or SOE as described in paragraph 0036 of the specification as originally filed) of the energy storage (¶ 0057: FIG. 3 is a diagram providing charging logic 100 for charging an electrical energy storage device to reach a state of charge (SOC) target value using a system that includes a PV array and a battery array chargeable with electric power produced by the PV array, according to one embodiment. CCD mode runs from a configured start time to a configured end time and works to get the ESS to a desired SOC target by a certain time; ¶ 0070: the Min BESS power setpoint would be the minimum of (i) SOE_to_Manage (in Watt-hours); as disclosed in ¶ 0057 and 0070, and the table shown in ¶ 0055, the system determines and keeps track of SOC and SOE); and
control the storage interface to charge or discharge the energy storage based on the SoS of the energy storage (¶ 0043: see above), and based on a time-variant state-of-storage upper threshold (SUT) (¶ 0014: the time-varying charge/discharge control signal is susceptible to being varied by adoption of one or more control modes of a plurality of control modes, and wherein the method further comprises: for each control mode of the plurality of control modes, generating a plurality of control signal candidate values including an upper bound value, a lower bound value, and an ideal value; ¶ 0054: methods disclosed herein for controlling a RES-ESS plant utilizing a coordinated charge/discharge (CCD) mode may work simultaneously with other (e.g., PV+S) control algorithms according to an amalgamation process. Such an amalgamation processes uses ideal, minimum (lower bound), and maximum (upper bound) values produced by each control algorithm (wherein each algorithm corresponds to a different control mode), and based on the configured priority of a control algorithm, amalgamation produces a final ESS charge or discharge target. In this regard, in certain embodiments a time-varying charge/discharge control signal is susceptible to being varied by adoption of one or more control modes of multiple control modes, wherein for each control mode of a plurality of control modes, signal candidate values including an upper bound value, a lower bound value, and an ideal value are generated; ¶ 0057: CCD mode runs from a configured start time to a configured end time and works to get the ESS to a desired SOC target by a certain time. CCD mode may be executed in a loop inside the energy dispatcher and at each refresh period calculates and returns to the controller the following three values: Bess_Ideal, Bess_Max, and Bess_Min, as will be described hereinafter, following discussion of refresh period; the disclosure of Bess_Max power set-point for a refresh period implies an SoS upper threshold; ¶ 0076: an algorithm dedicated to each active power control mode may output an ideal value, a minimum (lower bound—corresponding to the most negative or least positive) value, and a maximum (upper bound—corresponding to the most positive or least negative) value that can be accommodated by a BESS while the still being able to satisfy defined requirements (e.g., according to a SOC schedule)… for Coordinated Charge Discharge Management (CCD) mode, the Min and Max BESS power setpoints would represent the minimum and maximum BESS power, respectively, that the mode can accommodate at that instant while satisfaction of a SOC target is still attained).
Regarding claim 2, HANSEN discloses a power source configured to produce power (14, Figs. 1A & 1B); a power manager (comprising 16, Figs. 1A & 1B) having a maximum output power (¶ 0077, 0080); a load drawing a load power (¶ 0058); and a power grid (34, Fig. 1A), wherein the power manager comprises the controller (36, Figs. 1A & 1B; ¶ 0051).
Regarding claim 3, HANSEN discloses the controller is configured to control the storage interface to charge the energy storage based on at least one of: power produced by the power source being higher than the maximum output power of the power manager; or the power produced by the power source being lower than the maximum output power of the power manager, the SoS being lower than the SUT, and the power produced by the power source being higher than the load power drawn by the load (¶ 0073; as shown in Fig. 5 and explained in 0073, at around 09:00, the power produced by the power source is depicted as {a}, and the load power drawn by the load is depicted as {c}, therefore the power produced by the power source is higher than the load power drawn by load at 09:00, is implied as being “lower than the maximum output power of the power manager” since the power produced is higher after 09:00, and the “SoS being lower than the SUT” is implied in order to implement the Coordinated Charge Discharge Management described above).
Regarding claim 4, HANSEN discloses the controller is configured to control the storage interface to discharge the energy storage based on at least one of: power produced by the power source being lower than the maximum output power of the power manager, and the SoS being higher than the SUT; or the power produced by the power source being lower than the maximum output power of the power manager, the SoS being lower than the SUT, and the power produced by the power source being lower than the load power drawn by the load (¶ 0073; as shown in Fig. 5 and explained in 0073, at around 13:00-14:00, the power produced by the power source is depicted as {a}, and the load power drawn by the load is depicted as {c}, therefore the power produced by the power source is lower than the load power drawn by load at around 13:00-14:00, is implied as being “lower than the maximum output power of the power manager” since the power produced is higher prior to 13:00-14:00, and the “SoS being lower than the SUT” is implied in order to implement the Coordinated Charge Discharge Management described above).
Regarding claim 5, HANSEN discloses the controller is further configured to control the storage interface to charge or discharge the energy storage based on a SoS lower threshold (SLT) (¶ 0014, 0054, 0057, 0076).
Regarding claim 6, HANSEN discloses the controller is configured to determine a power for discharging the energy storage, and further configured to perform at least one of: discharging the energy storage to the load based on the power produced by the power source being lower than the load power drawn by the load (¶ 0073; as shown in Fig. 5 and explained in 0073, at around 13:00-14:00, the power produced by the power source is depicted as {a}, and the load power drawn by the load is depicted as {c}, therefore the power produced by the power source is lower than the load power drawn by load at around 13:00-14:00, and the energy storage is discharged); dissipating power based on the power produced by the power source being higher than the load power drawn by the load, and a grid limit of the power grid being reached; discharging to the power gird based on the power produced by the power source being higher than the load power drawn by the load, the grid limit not being reached, and power not being imported from the power grid; or reducing import from the power grid and discharging to the load based on the power produced by the power source being higher than the load power drawn by the load, the power gird limit not being reached, and power being imported from the power grid.
Regarding claim 7, HANSEN discloses the maximum output power of the power manager is a lower value of: a power limit of the power manager, and a sum of a grid limit, of the power grid, and a current power drawn by the load, wherein the grid limit is a sum of a power imported from the power grid and an export limit (¶ 0077, 0080).
Regarding claim 8, HANSEN discloses the power manager further comprises a communicator coupled with the controller and configured to transmit or receive signals (¶ 0051).
Regarding claim 10, HANSEN discloses the power manager comprises: a power converter configured to convert at least one of the power generated by the power source, power from the energy storage, or power from the power grid, to power ratings suitable for consumption by the load (comprising 16, Figs. 1A & 1B; ¶ 0050-0052).
Regarding claim 11, HANSEN discloses the power manager comprises a meter, and wherein the power manager is configured to perform at least one of: monitoring power imported from the power grid; or monitoring power exported to the power grid (¶ 0051).
Regarding claim 12, HANSEN discloses the controller is further configured to determine the time-variant SUT for a selected time period by: determining a target SoS at an end of the selected time period and proceeding in an iterative manner, wherein the target SoS is an initial SUT in a succeeding time step; and determining, for each time step in the selected time period, a current value of the SUT by subtracting a value of an excess energy differential prediction of the succeeding time step from a value of the SUT in the succeeding time step (¶ 0057-0058, 0067, 0076: the “target SoS is an initial SUT in a succeeding time step” is implied in the recalculation that occurs during the refresh period, since the recalculation ensures a desired SOC target by a certain time), wherein the current value of the SUT is configured to be a succeeding value of the SUT for a preceding time step (¶ 0057-0058, 0067, 0076), and wherein the excess energy differential prediction is determined based on an excess power production prediction and a time differential (¶ 0045, 0051, 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 14, HANSEN discloses the storage interface comprises a power converter configured to convert power from the energy storage to power ratings used by the power manager (26, Figs. 1A & 1B; ¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 15, HANSEN discloses the storage interface is a bidirectional direct current to direct current (DC/DC) converter (¶ 0050: a DC/DC converter is implied for the DC coupled embodiment).
Regarding claim 17, HANSEN discloses a method comprising:
determining:
a time-variant state-of-storage upper threshold (SUT) (¶ 0014: the time-varying charge/discharge control signal is susceptible to being varied by adoption of one or more control modes of a plurality of control modes, and wherein the method further comprises: for each control mode of the plurality of control modes, generating a plurality of control signal candidate values including an upper bound value, a lower bound value, and an ideal value; ¶ 0054: methods disclosed herein for controlling a RES-ESS plant utilizing a coordinated charge/discharge (CCD) mode may work simultaneously with other (e.g., PV+S) control algorithms according to an amalgamation process. Such an amalgamation processes uses ideal, minimum (lower bound), and maximum (upper bound) values produced by each control algorithm (wherein each algorithm corresponds to a different control mode), and based on the configured priority of a control algorithm, amalgamation produces a final ESS charge or discharge target. In this regard, in certain embodiments a time-varying charge/discharge control signal is susceptible to being varied by adoption of one or more control modes of multiple control modes, wherein for each control mode of a plurality of control modes, signal candidate values including an upper bound value, a lower bound value, and an ideal value are generated; ¶ 0057: CCD mode runs from a configured start time to a configured end time and works to get the ESS to a desired SOC target by a certain time. CCD mode may be executed in a loop inside the energy dispatcher and at each refresh period calculates and returns to the controller the following three values: Bess_Ideal, Bess_Max, and Bess_Min, as will be described hereinafter, following discussion of refresh period; the disclosure of Bess_Max power set-point for a refresh period implies an SoS upper threshold; ¶ 0076: an algorithm dedicated to each active power control mode may output an ideal value, a minimum (lower bound—corresponding to the most negative or least positive) value, and a maximum (upper bound—corresponding to the most positive or least negative) value that can be accommodated by a BESS while the still being able to satisfy defined requirements (e.g., according to a SOC schedule)… for Coordinated Charge Discharge Management (CCD) mode, the Min and Max BESS power setpoints would represent the minimum and maximum BESS power, respectively, that the mode can accommodate at that instant while satisfaction of a SOC target is still attained);
a state-of-storage (SoS) of an energy storage (24, Figs. 1A & 1B; ¶ 0049: an energy storage device 24 including multiple energy storage units 24A-24N (such as a battery array including battery units); ¶ 0057: FIG. 3 is a diagram providing charging logic 100 for charging an electrical energy storage device to reach a state of charge (SOC) target value using a system that includes a PV array and a battery array chargeable with electric power produced by the PV array, according to one embodiment. CCD mode runs from a configured start time to a configured end time and works to get the ESS to a desired SOC target by a certain time; ¶ 0070: the Min BESS power setpoint would be the minimum of (i) SOE_to_Manage (in Watt-hours); as disclosed in ¶ 0057 and 0070, and the table shown in ¶ 0055, the system determines and keeps track of SOC and SOE);
a power drawn by a load (¶ 0058: an electrical system (e.g., grid) operator to coordinate different generation resources to meet a specified system load, since various generation purchase and supply transactions are commonly scheduled as firm power outputs for specific (predetermined) blocks of time. Participation by bidding in energy markets or energy balance markets requires firm commitments to supply power for specified periods of time);
a power produced by a power source (14, Figs. 1A & 1B; ¶ 0030: a renewable electrical energy generation resource (RES); ¶ 0051: a RES electrical power meter 19 to measure RES output); and
a maximum output power of a power manager (¶ 0077: For Active Power Limiting control mode that limits the power below a certain active power limit, the Max BESS power setpoint would be the maximum power the control mode can accommodate (i.e., a power threshold); ¶ 0080: Examples of limits addressed by staging mode include fundamental system limits (e.g., energy source or self-imposed limits), nameplate and device limits (e.g., nameplate maximum voltage rating and nameplate active generation power rating at unity power factor)), and present operating limits (e.g., maximum voltage and maximum active generation power). As an example of energy source of self-imposed limits, consider that a system cannot produce power that it does not have available, and that limits on wattage may result from availability on solar resources and/or limits an inverter imposes on itself due to factors such as thermal conditions, errors, failures, etc);
charging the energy storage based on one of:
the power produced by the power source being higher than the maximum output power of the power manager (this limitation is recited in the alternative, and HANSEN discloses the other alternative); or
the power produced by the power source being lower than the maximum output power of the power manager, the SoS being lower than the time-variant state-of-storage upper threshold (SUT), and the power produced by the power source being higher than the power drawn by the load (¶ 0073; as shown in Fig. 5 and explained in 0073, at around 09:00, the power produced by the power source is depicted as {a}, and the load power drawn by the load is depicted as {c}, therefore the power produced by the power source is higher than the load power drawn by load at 09:00, is implied as being “lower than the maximum output power of the power manager” since the power produced is higher after 09:00, and the “SoS being lower than the SUT” is implied in order to implement the Coordinated Charge Discharge Management described above); and
discharging the energy storage based on one of:
the power produced by the power source being lower than the maximum output power of the power manager, and the SoS being higher than the SUT (this limitation is recited in the alternative, and HANSEN discloses the other alternative); or
the power produced by the power source being lower than the maximum output power of the power manager, the SoS being lower than the SUT, and the power produced by the power source being lower than the power drawn by the load (¶ 0073; as shown in Fig. 5 and explained in 0073, at around 13:00-14:00, the power produced by the power source is depicted as {a}, and the load power drawn by the load is depicted as {c}, therefore the power produced by the power source is lower than the load power drawn by load at around 13:00-14:00, is implied as being “lower than the maximum output power of the power manager” since the power produced is higher prior to 13:00-14:00, and the “SoS being lower than the SUT” is implied in order to implement the Coordinated Charge Discharge Management described above).
Regarding claim 18, HANSEN discloses the charging the energy storage and the discharging the energy storage are further based on a SoS lower threshold (SLT) (¶ 0014, 0054, 0057, 0076).
Regarding claim 19, HANSEN discloses the discharging the energy storage further comprises at least one of: discharging the energy storage to the load based on the power produced by the power source being lower than the power drawn by the load (¶ 0073; as shown in Fig. 5 and explained in 0073, at around 13:00-14:00, the power produced by the power source is depicted as {a}, and the load power drawn by the load is depicted as {c}, therefore the power produced by the power source is lower than the load power drawn by load at around 13:00-14:00, and the energy storage is discharged); dissipating power based on the power produced by the power source being higher than the power drawn by the load, and a grid limit of the power grid being reached; discharging to the power grid based on the power produced by the power source being higher than the power drawn by the load, the grid limit not being reached and power not being imported from the power grid; or reducing import from the power grid and discharging to the load based on the power produced by the power source being higher than the power drawn by the load, the grid limit not being reached and power being imported from the power grid.
Regarding claim 20, HANSEN discloses the determining the time-variant SUT comprises at least one of: determining a target SoS at an end of a selected time period and proceeding in an iterative manner, wherein the target SoS is an initial SUT in a succeeding time step; and determining, for each time step in the selected time period, a current value of the SUT by subtracting a value of an excess energy differential prediction of the succeeding time step from a value of the SUT in the succeeding time step (¶ 0057-0058, 0067, 0076: the “target SoS is an initial SUT in a succeeding time step” is implied in the recalculation that occurs during the refresh period, since the recalculation ensures a desired SOC target by a certain time), wherein the current value of the SUT is configured to be a succeeding value of the SUT for a preceding time step (¶ 0057-0058, 0067, 0076), and wherein the excess energy differential prediction is determined based on an excess power production prediction and a time differential (¶ 0045, 0051, 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 21, HANSEN discloses the maximum output power is time-variant (¶ 0077, 0080).
Regarding claim 22, HANSEN discloses the determining the maximum output power of the power manager comprises determining a time-variant maximum output power of the power manager (¶ 0077, 0080).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN as applied to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-22 above, and further in view of KATAYAMA (US 2014/0214219).
Regarding claim 9, HANSEN discloses the system as applied to claim 8, but fails to disclose the communicator is configured to receive a signal related to pricing, and wherein the controller is further configured to determine a pricing graph based on the received signal related to pricing.
KATAYAMA discloses the communicator is configured to receive a signal related to pricing, and wherein the controller is further configured to determine a pricing graph based on the received signal related to pricing (¶ 0160-0161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the signal related to pricing and pricing graph of KATAYAMA into the system of HANSEN to produce an expected result of a system including a signal related to pricing and a pricing graph. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform charging in a time zone where the unit price of electricity is low and perform discharging in time zones where the unit price of electricity is high (KATAYAMA, ¶ 0161).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN as applied to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-22 above, and further in view of SUGENO (US 2018/0269685).
Regarding claim 13, HANSEN discloses the system as applied to claim 2, and further discloses the power source comprises a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) generators (¶ 0049).
HANSEN fails to disclose one or more photovoltaic generators of the plurality of photovoltaic generators are configured to be coupled to a direct current to direct current (DC/DC) converter configured to extract power from respective PV generator according to a maximum power point tracking algorithm.
SUGENO discloses one or more photovoltaic generators of the plurality of photovoltaic generators are configured to be coupled to a direct current to direct current (DC/DC) converter configured to extract power from respective PV generator according to a maximum power point tracking algorithm (¶ 0026-0027, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the maximum power point tracking algorithm of SUGENO into the system of HANSEN to produce an expected result of a system including a maximum power point tracking algorithm. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to maximize the amount of energy harvested from solar panels.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN as applied to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-22 above, and further in view of SON (US 2011/0282510).
Regarding claim 16, HANSEN discloses the system as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose a user interface coupled with the controller and configured to receive information from a user and to provide information to the user, wherein the information from the user comprises a schedule of operation of machines or appliances.
SON discloses a user interface coupled with the controller and configured to receive information from a user and to provide information to the user, wherein the information from the user comprises a schedule of operation of machines or appliances (¶ 0022, 0060, 0197, 0288, 0333, 0337).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the user interface and information of SON into the system of HANSEN to produce an expected result of a system including a user interface and information. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to promote effective energy use so that a user or provider approaches rational energy consumption more actively (SON, ¶ 0478).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN as applied to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-22 above, and further in view of KISHIYAMA (US 2011/0156652).
Regarding claim 23, HANSEN discloses the method as applied to claim 17, and further discloses the discharging is limited to a discharge limit based on: the power produced by the power source being lower than the power drawn by the load, and the SoS being higher than [a SUT] (¶ 0073; as shown in Fig. 5 and explained in 0073, at around 13:00-14:00, the power produced by the power source is depicted as {a}, and the load power drawn by the load is depicted as {c}, therefore the power produced by the power source is lower than the load power drawn by load at around 13:00-14:00, and the “SoS being higher than the SUT” is implied in order to implement the Coordinated Charge Discharge Management described above).
HANSEN fails to disclose the SoS being higher than a soft SUT, wherein the soft SUT is lower than the SUT.
KISHIYAMA discloses a soft SUT, wherein the soft SUT is lower than the SUT (¶ 0024, 0049, 0052). Including the soft SUT of KISHIYAMA in the method of HANSEN teaches the discharging is limited to a discharge limit based on the SoS being higher than a soft SUT.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the soft SUT into the method of HANSEN to produce an expected result of a method including a soft SUT. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a longer cycle life / lifetime for the energy storage (KISHIYAMA, ¶ 0014, 0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 1/19/2026
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859