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
Claims 4, 15, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites: “the RV performs runtime monitoring”. Applicant is advised to change this to: “the RV unit performs runtime monitoring”.
Regarding claim 15, applicant is advised to clarify the meaning of “compensate with highest peak with compensators of 50%, 75% and 95%” and explain how this is related to the lowest peak.
Claim 16 recites: “where in the ESS”. Applicant is advised to change this to: “wherein the ESS”.
Claim 20 recites: “DDS-EMS network”. Applicant is advised to spell out “DDS”.
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.
Claims 5, 9, 20 are 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 5 recites the limitation “each edge publisher or subscriber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the grid building switchgear". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to change this to “the
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the EMS edge publishers and subscribers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 20 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 and rewritten to overcome claim objections and 112(b) rejections above.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssef et al. “A DDS-Based Energy Management Framework for Small Microgrid Operation and Control” from “IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 3, MARCH 2018”(hereinafter Youssef) in view of Koko et al. “Optimal battery sizing for a grid-tied solar photovoltaic system supplying a residential load: A case study under South African solar irradiance” from “2021 The 2nd International Conference on Power Engineering (ICPE 2021), December 09–11, 2021, Nanning, Guangxi, China” (hereinafter Koko).
Regarding claim 1, Youssef teaches: system to manage power consumption for a building with solar panels (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6), comprising:
a building switchgear (Fig. 3, Page 961, right column - - the bidirectional grid-tied inverter is a switchgear);
an energy storage system (ESS) coupled to the building switchgear to selectively provide power in response to a customer power demand to prevent a customer grid power consumption from spiking and peaking at grid imbalance highest cost on peak times (Fig. 3 - - energy storage; Page 964, right column - - The optimization process results in better utilization of the energy storage to shift peak loads to low price periods.);
an energy management system (EMS) to operate the ESS from behind-the-meter (Abstract – a real time energy management system (EMS));
But Youssef does not explicitly teach:
a battery size determination unit to select a battery to the building given a solar capacity of the building.
However, Koko teaches:
a battery size determination unit to select a battery to the building given a solar capacity of the building (Abstract - - Different battery sizes have been analyzed for the selected 4.2kW solar PV array; Page 416, section 5.2 Case 2: different battery sizes; determined the optimal battery size is 11KWh battery size).
Youssef and Koko are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Youssef, and incorporating determining optimal battery size, as taught by Koko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve economic performance, as suggested by Koko (Page 411, section 1. Introduction).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Koko further teaches: determining solar generation capacity and solar power production therefrom (Page 412, Section 3.1 solar resource data), and from customer load data determining (Page 412, Section 3.2 Load demand profile) an initial battery size (Page 414, Section 5.1 Case 1: 5 kWh storage capacity; Section 5.2. Case 2: different battery size), and performing a simulation to determine a final battery size (Page 412, Section 3.4, Simulation parameters; Page 416, Section 5.2 - - based on the simulation results of various battery sizes, determining the optimal point).
Youssef and Koko are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Koko further teaches: code to profile Customer Electricity Usage (Page 412, section 3.2 load demand profile), and code to determine electricity cost savings (Fig. 2D, Page 416 - - “This has resulted in a daily energy cost savings of 39.2%, as shown by a green solid line.”), and code to optimize resource capacity (Page 416, 417, section 5.2 & 5.3 - - different battery sizes, different solar PV array sizes show optimized capacity).
Youssef and Koko are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Koko further teaches: code to determine a consumption behavior over a period of time to identify a Demand and Energy Peak Usage Pattern and Patterns during on-peak hours under Utility Tariffs (Fig. 2A shows usage pattern; Fig. 2D shows patterns during on-peak hours under Utility Tariffs).
Youssef and Koko are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssef et al. “A DDS-Based Energy Management Framework for Small Microgrid Operation and Control” from “IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 3, MARCH 2018”(hereinafter Youssef) in view of Koko et al. “Optimal battery sizing for a grid-tied solar photovoltaic system supplying a residential load: A case study under South African solar irradiance” from “2021 The 2nd International Conference on Power Engineering (ICPE 2021), December 09–11, 2021, Nanning, Guangxi, China” (hereinafter Koko) and further in view of MOHAMMAD et al. US 2021/0329023 (hereinafter MOHAMMAD).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Youssef further teaches: each edge publisher or subscriber performs read/write according to a quality of service (QoS) (page 959 - - “an appropriate quality of-service (QoS) profile was set for each application.)
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: a trace module records and passes actions that occur to a Runtime Verification (RV) unit.
However, MOHAMMAD teaches: a trace module records and passes actions that occur to a Runtime Verification (RV) unit ([0040] - - capture and assess time based system behavior using linear temporal logic; the module which assess behavior is a RV unit).
Youssef, Koko and MOHAMMAD are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to a power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating runtime verification unit, as taught by MOHAMMAD.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve computer network security, as suggested by MOHAMMAD ([0002]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Youssef, Koko and MOHAMMAD teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MOHAMMAD further teaches: the RV performs runtime monitoring based on Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) ([0040] - - capture and assess time based system behavior using linear temporal logic (LTL)).
Youssef, Koko and MOHAMMAD are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssef et al. “A DDS-Based Energy Management Framework for Small Microgrid Operation and Control” from “IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 3, MARCH 2018”(hereinafter Youssef) in view of Koko et al. “Optimal battery sizing for a grid-tied solar photovoltaic system supplying a residential load: A case study under South African solar irradiance” from “2021 The 2nd International Conference on Power Engineering (ICPE 2021), December 09–11, 2021, Nanning, Guangxi, China” (hereinafter Koko) and further in view of Hakiri et al. “Supporting End-to-end Scalability and Real-time Event Dissemination in the OMG Data Distribution Service over Wide Area Networks” from “Journal of Systems and Software, 2013, 86 (10), pp.2574-2593. hal-01052934“ (hereinafter Hakiri).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Youssef further teaches: each edge publisher or subscriber performs read/write according to a quality of service (QoS) (page 959 - - “an appropriate quality of-service (QoS) profile was set for each application.)
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: the QoS is communicated over a trace layer.
However, Hakiri teaches: the QoS is communicated over a trace layer (Page 5, left column - - “end-to-end path traced via a pub/sub data flow within DDS” discloses a trace layer. Page 4, left column - - “The DDS latency budget QoS policy establishes guidelines for acceptable end-to-end delays.”. Page 18 left column - - “end to end delay taken from trace files”)
Youssef, Koko and Hakiri are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to a network using DDS protocol.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating QoS communicated over a trace layer, as taught by Hakiri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to ensure end to end delays, as suggested by Hakiri (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Youssef, Koko and Hakiri teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hakiri further teaches: QoS comprises a predetermined operation time limit. (Page 4, left column - - “The DDS latency budget QoS policy establishes guidelines for acceptable end-to-end delays.” acceptable end-to-end delays is a predetermined operation time limit ).
Youssef, Koko and Hakiri are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claims 8 – 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssef et al. “A DDS-Based Energy Management Framework for Small Microgrid Operation and Control” from “IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 3, MARCH 2018”(hereinafter Youssef) in view of Koko et al. “Optimal battery sizing for a grid-tied solar photovoltaic system supplying a residential load: A case study under South African solar irradiance” from “2021 The 2nd International Conference on Power Engineering (ICPE 2021), December 09–11, 2021, Nanning, Guangxi, China” (hereinafter Koko) and further in view of Jammer et al. US 2014/0316600 (hereinafter Jammer).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: an independent system operator (ISO) accepted meter coupled to the switchgear, the ISO meter including a telemetry unit to communicate with an ISO.
However, Jammer teaches: an independent system operator (ISO) accepted meter coupled to the switchgear, the ISO meter including a telemetry unit to communicate with an ISO (Fig. 1, [0102] - - remote control center receives data from the smart meter; the smart meter maps to an ISO meter, the remote control center is an ISO; [0068] - - “The meter is approved according to IEC62052-11, IEC 62053-21 and ISO 9001.” Thus the meter is ISO accepted meter.).
Youssef, Koko and Jammer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating ISO meter including a telemetry unit, as taught by Jammer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide peak shaving, as suggested by Jammer ([0003]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: a utility revenue grade meter coupled to the grid building switchgear.
However, Jammer teaches: a utility revenue grade meter coupled to the grid building switchgear (Fig. 1, [0068] - - “The meter is approved according to IEC62052-11, IEC 62053-21 and ISO 9001.” Thus the meter is revenue grade meter. [0089] - - house circuit breaker is a building switch gear. [0012] - - The smart meter measures the electricity consumption of the house, thus the smart meter is coupled to the house circuit breaker.).
Youssef, Koko and Jammer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating meter coupled to a switchgear, as taught by Jammer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide peak shaving, as suggested by Jammer ([0003]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: an ESS controller to control operations of the ESS including a battery management system in each battery rack and a power conversion system (PCS) coupled to the battery rack, and a battery fire alarm system or fire suppression system.
However, Jammer teaches: an ESS controller to control operations of the ESS including a battery management system in each battery rack and a power conversion system (PCS) coupled to the battery rack, and a battery fire alarm system or fire suppression system (Fig. 1 - - smart control system in Energy storage apparatus is an ESS controller. [0063] - - MPU board to control battery is a battery management system; Fig. 5 - - DC/AC converter & AC/DC converter [0087] - - the heater can also cool the battery cells as it controls internal temperature of the cells. The heater is a battery fire suppression system.).
Youssef, Koko and Jammer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating an ESS controller, as taught by Jammer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide peak shaving, as suggested by Jammer ([0003]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: AC and DC disconnect switches positioned between the grid and one or more power conversion systems..
However, Jammer teaches: AC and DC disconnect switches positioned between the grid and one or more power conversion systems ([0088], [0089] - - a plurality of switches and circuit breaker).
Youssef, Koko and Jammer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating switches, as taught by Jammer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide peak shaving, as suggested by Jammer ([0003]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: code to calculate 95% of lowest peak and compensate with highest peak with compensators of 50%, 75% and 95%.
However, Jammer teaches: code to calculate 95% of lowest peak and compensate with highest peak with compensators of 50%, 75% and 95% ([0090] - - the inverter supports the grid with 90% of the measured power of the home load; [0194] - - the grid supplies at least 50% of the power, thus it is compensated with 50%).
Youssef, Koko and Jammer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating code to calculate peak, as taught by Jammer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide peak shaving, as suggested by Jammer ([0003]).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssef et al. “A DDS-Based Energy Management Framework for Small Microgrid Operation and Control” from “IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 3, MARCH 2018”(hereinafter Youssef) in view of Koko et al. “Optimal battery sizing for a grid-tied solar photovoltaic system supplying a residential load: A case study under South African solar irradiance” from “2021 The 2nd International Conference on Power Engineering (ICPE 2021), December 09–11, 2021, Nanning, Guangxi, China” (hereinafter Koko) and further in view of Sanchey Loureda et al. US 2011/0313964 (hereinafter Sanchey).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Youssef and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Youssef and Koko does not explicitly teach: code to find a highest peak (kW) during on-peak hours and code to find a lowest peak (kW) during on-peak hours.
However, Sanchey teaches: code to find a highest peak (kW) during on-peak hours and code to find a lowest peak (kW) during on-peak hours ([0237] - - peak power maximum; [0236] - - peak power minimum).
Youssef, Koko and Sanchey are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Youssef and Koko, and incorporating code to find a highest peak, as taught by Sanchey.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to optimize utility consumption, as suggested by Sanchey ([0013]).
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jammer et al. US 2014/0316600 (hereinafter Jammer) in view of Youssef et al. “A DDS-Based Energy Management Framework for Small Microgrid Operation and Control” from “IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 14, NO. 3, MARCH 2018”(hereinafter Youssef) and Hakiri et al. “Supporting End-to-end Scalability and Real-time Event Dissemination in the OMG Data Distribution Service over Wide Area Networks” (hereinafter Hakiri).
Regarding claim 16, Jammer teaches: a system to manage power consumption from a grid, comprising:
a building switchgear ([0088], [0089] - - a plurality of switches and circuit breaker);
an independent system operator (ISO) accepted meter coupled to the building switchgear, the ISO meter including a telemetry unit to communicate with an ISO (Fig. 1, [0102] - - remote control center receives data from the smart meter; the smart meter maps to an ISO meter, the remote control center is an ISO); and
an energy storage system (ESS) coupled to the building switchgear (Fig. 1 – battery), and an ISO or System Performance Meter, wherein the ESS selectively provides power in response to a customer power demand to prevent a customer grid power consumption from spiking and peaking at grid imbalance highest cost on peak times, wherein the ESS has a predetermined capacity ([0122] - - MHSB (main house storage battery); and
a solar panel coupled to the ESS (Fig. 1, [0160] - - solar panel),
But Jammer does not explicitly teach:
the ESS predetermined capacity is based on a monthly solar production based on time of use evening hour operational sequence.
However, Koko teaches:
the ESS predetermined capacity is based on a monthly solar production based on time of use evening hour operational sequence (Abstract - - Different battery sizes have been analyzed for the selected 4.2kW solar PV array; Page 416, section 5.2 Case 2: different battery sizes; determined the optimal battery size is 11KWh battery size; Page 412, Section 3.1 solar resource data - - monthly solar production; Abstract - - Time of use).
Jammer and Koko are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Jammer, and incorporating determining optimal battery size, as taught by Koko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve economic performance, as suggested by Koko (Page 411, section 1. Introduction).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jammer and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jammer further teaches: a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules coupled to the ESS ([0076] - - power source A is a solar power installation; [0190] - - PVs).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jammer and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jammer further teaches: the plurality of PV modules are connected to one or more PV combiners ([0190] - - PVs; [0076] - - power source A is a solar system; Fig. 1, [0062] - - each power source has corresponding power receiving interface to be connected to the battery; the power receiving interface is interpreted as PV combiners).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jammer and Koko teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jammer further teaches: a DC-DC converter coupled to the PV combiners, further comprising a plurality of battery combiners coupled to the DC-DC converter ([0063] - - the battery comprises a plurality of energy cells thus there is a battery combiner; [0160] - - DC/DC transformer is a DC-DC converter; the battery receives DC power from a solar panel).
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