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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 – 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: “sending feedback data to the first controller message…” Applicant is advised to change this to “sending feedback data to the first controller .
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 20 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the modified uniform price message". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 10 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. US 10,298,016 (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches: a method, comprising:
determining a power reference (Fig. 1 - - overall power request);
sending a first message from a first controller to each of a plurality of second controllers based on the power reference (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, C6, L21-28 - - provide reference power command to DERs; DER controllers are 2nd controllers; the DER aggregation management system is a first controller), each of the plurality of second controllers configured to control a plurality of associated distributed energy resources (DERs) (Fig. 1 - - DERs);
modifying energy usage of the associated DERs by each of the plurality of second controllers based on the first message (C9, L33-35 - - DER controller controls DER, thus adjust energy usage; C10, L14-16 - - each DER adjust its power output to bring its actual power output to its reference power output);
sending feedback data to the first controller message based on the modified energy usage of the associated DERs by each of the plurality of second controllers (Fig. 1, C6, L 29-35 - - provides DER status to the DER aggregation management system);
aggregating the feedback data by the first controller (C7, L20-21 - - current aggregation of DERs);
comparing the aggregated feedback data to the power reference (Fig. 1, C7, L1-25 - - generate delta DERs reference signal 61; “the error in overall power output between the current aggregation of DERs and the overall reference power”); and
sending a second message from the first controller to each of the plurality of second controllers based on the comparison of the aggregated feedback data to the power reference (C8, L10-22 - - calculate the power adjustment signal at a prescribed time interval, thus a second message is sent at the next time interval).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: further modifying energy usage of the associated DERs by each of the plurality of second controllers based on the second message (C8, L10-22 - - calculate the power adjustment signal at a prescribed time interval; C10, L14-16 - - each DER adjust its power output to bring its actual power output to its reference power output).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: the first message is based on an energy price (C7, L18 - - generation prices).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson teaches: a system, comprising:
a first controller configured to:
determine a power reference (Fig. 1 - - overall reference power is a power reference; the DER aggregation management system is a first controller);
send a first message to each of a plurality of second controllers based on the power reference, each of the plurality of second controllers configured to control a plurality of associated distributed energy resources (DERs) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, C6, L21-28 - - provide reference power command to DERs; DER controllers are 2nd controllers);
receive feedback data from each of the plurality of second controllers based on modified energy usage of the associated DERs based on the first message (C9, L33-35 - - DER controller controls DER, thus adjust energy usage; C10, L14-16 - - each DER adjust its power output to bring its actual power output to its reference power output; Fig. 1, C6, L 29-35 - - provides DER status to the DER aggregation management system);
aggregate the received feedback data (C7, L20-21 - - current aggregation of DERs);
compare the aggregated feedback data to the power reference (Fig. 1, C7, L1-25 - - generate delta DERs reference signal 61; “the error in overall power output between the current aggregation of DERs and the overall reference power”); and
send a second message to each of the plurality of second controllers based on the comparison of the aggregated feedback data to the power reference (C8, L10-22 - - calculate the power adjustment signal at a prescribed time interval, thus a second message is sent at the next time interval)..
Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: each of the second controllers is associated with a respective dwelling (C4, L45-47 - - DERs over a geographically diverse area).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: the DERs include at least one of an air conditioner, a heat pump, an electric vehicle charger, a solar energy panel, an energy storage device, and electric water heater (C5, L4 - - photovoltaic system).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: the first controller is configured to determine the first message based on energy price (C7, L18 - - generation prices).
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 4 – 7, 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. US 10,298,016 (hereinafter Johnson) in view of Lian et al. US 2019/0020220 (hereinafter Lian).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Johnson does not explicitly teach:
the feedback data does not include individual DER feedback data.
However, Lian teaches:
the feedback data does not include individual DER feedback data (Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0058] - - the aggregated utility function representing BMS is the feedback data, this function does not include individual DER data).
Johnson and Lian are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy control 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 method, as taught by Johnson, and incorporating not including individual DER feedback, as taught by Lian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve grid reliability, as suggested by Lian ([0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Johnson does not explicitly teach:
the feedback data includes net energy consumption data for the associated DERs.
However, Lian teaches:
the feedback data includes net energy consumption data for the associated DERs ([0064] - - net real power injections; [0091] - - each resource submit a utility function to an aggregator).
Johnson and Lian are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy control 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 method, as taught by Johnson, and incorporating net energy consumption, as taught by Lian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve grid reliability, as suggested by Lian ([0006]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Johnson and Lian teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lian further teaches: aggregating the feedback data includes adding the energy consumption data sent from each of the second controllers ([0091] - - aggregated utility function).
Johnson and Lian are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Johnson and Lian teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: the power reference is a power threshold signal Pthres_ctr, the aggregated feedback data is an aggregated power feedback signal P_ag, and wherein the method further comprises:
determining an error signal ΔPag based on the difference between the power threshold signal Pthres_ctr and the aggregated power feedback signal P_ag (Fig. 1, C7, L1-25 - - “the error in overall power output between the current aggregation of DERs and the overall reference power”; the overall reference power maps Pthres_ctr).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Johnson does not explicitly teach:
a database accessible by the first controller, the database storing historical power consumption data related to the DERs and energy price data, wherein the first controller is configured to determine a load-to-price correlation factor based on the stored historical power consumption data and the energy price data.
However, Lian teaches:
a database accessible by the first controller, the database storing historical power consumption data related to the DERs and energy price data, wherein the first controller is configured to determine a load-to-price correlation factor based on the stored historical power consumption data and the energy price data ([0088] - - an aggregated utility function for an energy network or sub-network can be determined that relates energy produced or consumed to energy price).
Johnson and Lian are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy control 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 Johnson, and incorporating relating energy consumed to energy price, as taught by Lian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve grid reliability, as suggested by Lian ([0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Johnson does not explicitly teach:
a database accessible by the second controller, the database storing historical power consumption data related to the DERs associated with the second controller, wherein the second controller is configured to determine a price-to-load correlation factor based on the stored historical power consumption data and the energy price data.
However, Lian teaches:
a database accessible by the second controller, the database storing historical power consumption data related to the DERs associated with the second controller, wherein the second controller is configured to determine a price-to-load correlation factor based on the stored historical power consumption data and the energy price data ([0049] - - at the resource level, the utility function relates an amount of energy consumed by a resource base on energy price).
Johnson and Lian are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy control 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 Johnson, and incorporating a price-to-load correlation, as taught by Lian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve grid reliability, as suggested by Lian ([0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson teaches: a system, comprising:
a plurality of edge controllers, each of the plurality of edge controllers associated with a respective dwelling (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, C6, L21-28 - - DER controllers are 2nd controllers);
each of the plurality of edge controllers configured to receive a uniform power adjustment message from a central controller (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, C6, L21-28 - - provide reference power command to DERs; the DER aggregation management system is a central controller);
each of the plurality of edge controllers configured to modify energy usage of a plurality of associated distributed energy resources (DERs) based on the uniform power adjustment message (C9, L33-35 - - DER controller controls DER, thus adjust energy usage; C10, L14-16 - - each DER adjust its power output to bring its actual power output to its reference power output); and
each of the plurality of edge controllers configured to send feedback data to the central controller based on the modified energy usage of the plurality of DERs (Fig. 1, C6, L 29-35 - - provides DER status to the DER aggregation management system).
But Johnson does not explicitly teach:
each of the plurality of edge controllers associated with a respective dwelling receiving power from a utility;
each of the plurality of edge controllers configured to modify energy usage.
However, Lian teaches:
each of the plurality of edge controllers associated with a respective dwelling receiving power from a utility (Fig. 9 - - residential house);
each of the plurality of edge controllers configured to modify energy usage ([0068] - - local controller controls the power consumption).
Johnson and Lian are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy control 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 method, as taught by Johnson, and incorporating dwelling receiving power, as taught by Lian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve grid reliability, as suggested by Lian ([0006]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Johnson and Lian teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lian further teaches: a uniform power adjustment message is based on historical edge level power consumption and energy price data. ([0065] - - the coordinator sends the optimal dispatch signals; [0068], [0079] - - the dispatch signals are generated by solving an optimization problem based on energy consumption; energy price).
Johnson and Lian are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Johnson and Lian teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: the uniform power adjustment message is based on a central power reference received by the central controller (Fig. 2, C9, L48-52 - - overall reference power is a central power reference; the auxiliary controller outputs an overall DER aggregation control signal; the overall DER aggregation control signal is uniform power adjustment message), and wherein each of the edge controllers is configured to determine a respective edge level power threshold based on the central power reference and the historical edge level power consumption and the energy price data (Fig. 2, C9, L52-67 - - the output of summation node 270C is a respective edge level power threshold; it is based on the overall DER aggregation control signal; C7, L18 - - the ΔDERs reference signal is based on generation prices;).
Lian further teaches determine a respective edge level power threshold based on the historical edge level power consumption ([0068] - - energy consumption).
Johnson and Lian are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Johnson and Lian teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: the central controller is configured to aggregate the feedback data from each of the plurality of edge controllers (C7, L20-21 - - current aggregation of DERs).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Johnson and Lian teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Johnson further teaches: the central controller is configured to modify the uniform power adjustment message based on the aggregated feedback data from each of the plurality of edge controllers, and wherein each of the plurality of edge controllers is configured to receive the modified uniform price message from the central controller (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, C9, L36-65 - - the auxiliary controller processes the overall power output error and outputs an overall DER aggregation control signal; overall DER aggregation control signal is uniform power adjustment message; the overall power output error is aggregated feedback data).
Conclusion
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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