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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/1 4 /2023 , 09/12/2024 , 03/18/2025 , and 07/09/2025 . The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. When applicable, the examiner considered the US equivalents of the foreign publications cited on the IDS. IDS citation US equivalent Pub. Date Inventor KR 10-2011-0084751 A US 2011/0175451 A1 07/21/2011 Moon KR 10-2013-0066100 A US 2013/0169046 A1 07/04/2013 Shin et al. KR 10-2016-0080908 A US 2016/0190864 A1 06/30/2016 Yeon et al. KR 10-1795301 B1 US 2019/0181644 A1 06/13/2019 Chae et al. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. “ control unit ” (claim 1 ) “ conventional PCS” (claim 2) “ lithium -ion battery (LIB)” (claim 13) “ lithium -based battery” (claim 16) “ irreversible reactions due to a phase change from a solid to an ion of the lithium” (claim 17) The drawings do not clearly depict the differences between the “optimal efficiency range of the PCS”, the “maximum efficiency range of the PCS”, and the “minimum efficiency range of the PCS”. It is suggested this may be depicted graphically. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Objections Claims 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 , line 1 misspells “control” as “ contorl ”. Claim 19 should have a period at the end for proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The following terms are interpreted with their broadest reasonable interpretations. The Specification does not define sufficient structure for these claim limitations. Claim 1 : “control unit” 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. Claim s 1- 2 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 : “control unit” Claim 11: “ power conversion unit ” Claim 15: “power conversion unit” Claims 2-10 , 12-14, and 16-20 are further rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for their dependency on other rejected claims. 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 - 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. The c laim 1 limitation “control unit” , the claim 11 limitation “power conversion unit”, and the claim 15 limitation “power conversion unit” each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification ¶ [24] states each of these means “are, for example programs stored in the control device 20”, which is insufficient structure for each of these “means”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim 2 , lines 2-3 recite “higher efficiency than a power loss”. This language is indefinite because it is unclear how an efficiency (%) can be higher than a power loss (kW). These parameters are not directly comparable because they do not have the same units. Thus, for examination purposes, it is interpreted that any claim term of “power” and/or “efficiency” may intend another of these parameters. Claim 2 is indefinite as to which feature is intended to be modified by the language “to operate in a more stable manner when compared to a conventional PCS”. For examination purposes, it is interpreted this language modifies “the battery”. One co uld alternatively interpret this language is intended to modify “the PCS”. This language is further indefinite as to the metes and bounds of “a more stable manner when compared to a conventional PCS”. It is suggested that to be definite, a measure of stability should be defined for the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites “wait for efficient discharging”. This language is indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what is considered “efficient discharging”. To be definite, the claim should include clear definition of “efficient discharging”, such as a threshold of some kind. Claim 3 recites “efficient charging”. This language is indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what is considered “efficient charging”. To be definite, the claim should include clear definition of “efficient charging”, such as a threshold of some kind. Claim 5 recites “an output between 0.2 C and 1 C”. This language is unclear as to the unit “C”. For examination purposes, the language is instead interpreted as “a charging/discharging rate (C-rate) between 0.2 C and 1 C”. Claims 6-7 compare parameters of electric energy, power, and efficiency. However, each of these parameters have different units (kW-hr, kW, %) and thus cannot be directly compared. Thus, any claim language which refers to any of electric energy, power, and efficiency is indefinite as to which parameter is actually intended. Thus, for examination purposes, it is interpreted that any claim language of electric energy, power, and efficiency may intend another of these parameters. Claim 7 , line 3 recites “the calculated electric energy”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 7 , line 3 recites “the charging power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 10 , lines 6-7 and claim 18 , line 4 each recite “the electric vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 11 , lines 3-4 twice introduce “a power conversion unit”. Thus, claim 11 is unclear as to whether these are the same power conversion unit or if there are two separate power conversion units. Claim 11 , line 4 recites “the power conversion system (PCS)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that each of the power conversion unit(s) and the power conversion system (PCS) may be the same feature. Claim 1 3 , line 3 recites “the power control system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 14 recites “the optimal efficiency range of the PCS is in a range of 50 kW to 200 kW” Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ efficiency” in claim 14 is used by the claim to mean “power ” (because “kW” are units of power), while the accepted meaning is “ a ratio of energy or power ” (expressed as a ratio or percentage). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claim 15 is indefinite as to whether the “power conversion unit” and the “power conversion system (PCS)” are the same or different features. For examination purposes, these are interpreted to be the same feature. Claim 1 7 , line 3 recites “the lithium”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 1 8 , lines 3-4 recite “the charging speed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 1 9 , line 2 recites “the VIB ESS”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Further, the abbreviation should be fully written out in the first introduction of the claimed feature. Claim 20 , line 2 recites “the vanadium ion battery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claims 4, 8-9, 12, and 16 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on other rejected 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1). Regardin g Claim 1 , Chae discloses a power control system (Fig. 1; ¶ [65]: “stand-alone microgrid”; see annotated Fig. 1, included infra ) comprising the following features. Chae further discloses an energy storage system (ESS) (“energy storage device 10”; Fig. 1) that is connected to a power grid (“distribution line” on each side of “transformer”; Fig. 1) and includes a battery (¶ [66]: “10 such as a battery energy storage system (BESS) (hereinafter, referred to "battery")”). Chae further discloses a power conversion system (PCS) (“power conditioning system (PCS) 20”; Fig. 1) operatively connected to the power grid (“distribution line”) and the energy storage system (ESS) (10). Chae further discloses a control unit (“microgrid operation device 100”; Figs. 1-2) configured to control a charging procedure (any operation involving charging “10”) and a discharging procedure (any operation involving discharging “10”) for the battery (10) by giving a priority to power conversion efficiency (efficiency of “20” is prioritized by using “PCS efficiency consideration unit 230” to set the “final PCS input value”; Fig. 2; ¶ [120-128]) of the PCS (20). 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. Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0319464 A1). Regarding Claim 2 , Chae discloses the power control system according to claim 1. Chae further discloses to give the priority to the power conversion efficiency (efficiency of “20” is prioritized by using “PCS efficiency consideration unit 230” to set the “final PCS input value”; Fig. 2; ¶ [120-128]) of the PCS (20). Chae further discloses the battery (10) is further configured to operate in a more stable manner (¶ [18]: “charging/discharging by considering the efficiency of the PCS so that a state of charge (SOC) of the battery is maintained within a preset range”) when compared to a conventional PCS (with a conventional PCS as described in the “BACKGROUND ART” section, “it is difficult to provide energy in a stable manner” and thus, “a microgrid operation device is needed to control … charging and discharging operations of the BESS are performed through a power conditioning system (PCS)”; ¶ [8-10]) . Chae does not explicitly disclose “in order to give the priority to the power conversion efficiency of the PCS, the battery is configured to have higher efficiency than a power loss of the PCS”. However, this is strongly implied because the battery’s power loss is not individually listed in the Tabl e 4 computation of “total consumption power”. Park teaches that the battery is configured to have higher efficiency than a power loss of the PCS (Fig. 3 shows the battery is more efficient than the PCS for a significant range of operating conditions; ¶ [63-64]). Park further teaches the battery is configured to have higher efficiency than a power loss of the PCS is a natural result at certain operating conditions (¶ [63-64]). Park further teaches this configuration of a power control system to optimize efficiency (¶ [6-9]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery disclosed by Chae to have higher efficiency than a power loss of the PCS, as taught by Park, so that the power control system as a whole is more efficient. Park further teaches the battery being more efficient than the PCS is a natural result of certain operating conditions. Regarding Claim 6 , Chae discloses the power control system according to claim 1. Chae further discloses that for the charging procedure (any operation involving charging “10”) , the control unit (100) is further configured to calculate an optimal charging electric energy (¶ [120-128]: “PCS target output value”) of the battery (10). Chae does not disclose to “compare the optimal charging electric energy and an extra power of the power grid, and confirm whether the optimal charging electric energy of the battery matches an optimal efficiency range of the PCS when the extra power of the power grid exists”. Park teaches that for the charging procedure (title: “method for operating ESS at optimal efficiency”; Fig. 1) , the control unit (¶ [31]: “apparatus of performing power distribution”; Fig. 9) is further configured to control the following charging operations. Park further teaches to calculate an optimal charging electric energy ( “input/output power values” per ¶ [43]: “determining optimal charge/discharge levels of at least two unit- BESSs included in the ESS by using charge/discharge efficiency data of the at least two unit-BESSs to satisfy input/output power values or commanded values of the whole ESS at a current point of time as a specific point of time”; Fig. 1, step S60) of the battery (“ESS”). Park further teaches to compare the optimal charging electric energy (“input/output power values” to the “ESS”; compared with “idle power” from the grid per ¶ [2]) and an extra power (¶ [2]: “idle power” from “power grid”) of the power grid (all power used for charging the “ESS” is extra power of the power grid; ¶ [2]: “ESS refers to a system for using energy effectively by storing remaining energy in a power grid”; ¶ [2]: “storing idle power at a time of encountering less load”). Park further teaches to confirm whether the optimal charging electric energy (“input/output power values” to the “ESS”) of the battery (“ESS”) matches an optimal efficiency range of the PCS (“input/output power values” assessed with the efficiency ranges of the “PCS” per ¶ [9]: “satisfy commanded input/output power values of the whole ESS at a current point of time; and charging or discharging the at least two unit-BESSs depending on the determined optimal charge/discharge power values”) when the extra power of the power grid exists (occurs when “idle power” is present, per ¶ [2]). Park further teaches this operation for evaluating the optimal charging power for the battery to improve overall system energy efficiency (¶ [87]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charging procedure disclosed by Chae to compare the optimal charging electric energy of the battery with the extra power of the power grid and an optimal efficiency range of the PCS, as taught by Park, to improve overall energy efficiency of the power control system. Regarding Claim 7 , the combo of Chae & Park teaches the power control system according to claim 6. Chae further discloses the control unit (100) is further configured to selectively perform setting the calculated electric energy (¶ [120-128]: “PCS target output value”) to the charging power (PCS “20” output is used to charge “10”, as set by “100”). Claim s 3 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of the IEEE article by “Qiu” (X. Qiu et al., A Field Validated Model of a Vanadium Redox Flow Battery for Microgrids , July 2014, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 1592-1601). NOTE: The Qiu reference is currently accessible at the following link: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6839130 Regarding Claim 3 , Chae discloses the power control system according to claim 1. Chae further discloses to give the priority to the power conversion efficiency (efficiency of “20” is prioritized by using “PCS efficiency consideration unit 230” to set the “final PCS input value”; Fig. 2; ¶ [120-128]) of the PCS (20). Chae further discloses the battery ( 10 ) is configured to be charged ( ¶ [120]: “the charging/discharging amount of the battery may be calculated as a PCS input value” ) and wait for efficient discharging ( battery is only discharged efficiently per ¶ [120-128] ). Chae further discloses the battery ( 10 ) is further configured to be charged with an optimal electric level ( [120-128]: “final PCS input value”; ¶ [120]: “the charging/discharging amount of the battery may be calculated as a PCS input value” ) according to a specification (per ¶ [120-128], the “final PCS input value (kW)” is calculated from the PCS specification values related to “PCS equipment capacity” and “PCS efficiency”) of the PCS ( 20 ) for efficient charging ( “PCS efficiency” considered per ¶ [120-128] ) . Chae does not disclose “the battery is configured to be charged with voltage at a predetermined level or greater”. Qiu teaches the battery (“vanadium redox flow battery (VRB)”) is configured to be charged with voltage at a predetermined level or greater (Table II “VRB Operating Data” teaches the battery has a “minimum voltage” of 42 V; section II. Microgrid System Description: “can be charged to a maximum voltage of 56.5 V and discharged to a minimum voltage of 42 V”; thus, the battery configured to be charged with 42 V or greater). Qiu further teaches that the battery is charged with at least a predetermined voltage to accommodate inherent ratings of the vanadium ion battery ( section II. Microgrid System Description ) , thus avoiding any damages that would occur as a result of operating the battery below its minimum voltage rating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control system disclosed by Chae such that the battery is charged with at least a predetermined voltage, as taught by Qiu , to avoid damaging the battery as would occur by operating the battery below its minimum voltage rating. Regarding Claim 4 , Chae discloses the power control system according to claim 1. Chae does not disclose “the battery relates to a vanadium ion battery (VIB)”. Qiu teaches the battery relates to a vanadium ion battery (VIB) (title: “vanadium redox flow battery (VRB)”) . Qiu further teaches using a vanadium ion battery in an ESS for several advantages including high efficiency, high scalability, fast response, long lifetime, and low maintenance requirements ( section I. Introduction ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery disclosed by Chae to be a vanadium ion battery, as taught by Qiu , for high efficiency, high scalability, fast response, long lifetime, and low maintenance requirements. Regarding Claim 5 , the combo of Chae & Qiu teaches the power control system according to claim 4. Chae further discloses the power control system (Fig. 1) has an output (charging/discharging power between the PCS “20” and the ESS battery “10” ; Fig. 1). Chae further does not disclose the output is “ between 0.2 C and 1 C in which an efficiency of the vanadium ion battery (VIB) is highest. ” Qiu teaches the power control system (“microgrid system”) has an output between 0.2 C and 1 C (annotated Fig. 12, included infra , shows efficiency is highest at 80 A; per section II. Microgrid System Description, the VRB’s capacity is 20 kWh and the stack voltage ranges from 42 V to 56.5 V; thus, the highest efficiency charging rate = 80 A x 50 V / 20 kWh = 0.2 C) in which an efficiency of the vanadium ion battery (VIB) is highest (section V. System Efficiency Analysis: “VRB can attain nearly 80% charging efficiency”; Fig. 12 shows this occurs at 80 A; section IV.C. Parasitic Losses: “VRB is most efficient during heavy operation and its efficiency decreases under low current”). Qiu further teaches using this operating range for the VIB to maximize efficiency and minimize wasted power ( section V. System Efficiency Analysis ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control system’s output disclosed by the combo of Chae & Qiu to be between 0.2 C and 1 C in which an efficiency of the VIB is highest, as further taught by Qiu , for to optimize the charging efficiency and charging speed based on the characteristics of the VIB. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of Allison et al. (US 2019/0322189 A1; hereinafter “Alli”) . Regarding Claim 4 , Chae discloses the power control system according to claim 1. Chae does not disclose “the battery relates to a vanadium ion battery (VIB)”. Alli teaches the battery (“battery cell 20” in Fig. 2; “flow battery [systems] 500, 600, 620, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400” in Figs. 5-14; “also included in “charging system 1502” of Fig. 15 per ¶ [143]) relates to a vanadium ion battery (VIB) (¶ [67]: “battery cell 20 forms a portion of a vanadium-vanadium (e.g., all-vanadium) redox flow battery”). Alli further teaches using a vanadium ion battery in an ESS for several advantages including fast charging capability (¶ [86]), improved efficiency (¶ [68, 140]), and lower maintenance costs (¶ [68, 140]) compared to other battery options. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery disclosed by Chae to be a vanadium ion battery, as taught by Alli, for advantages including fast charging capability, improved efficiency, and/or lower maintenance costs. Claims 8 -9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of the IEEE article by “Rich” (L. Richard et al., Fast charging Station with Battery Storage System for EV : Optimal Integration into the Grid , 12/23/2018, 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM)). NOTE: The IEEE article by Rich is currently accessible at the following link: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585856 Regarding Claim 8 , Chae discloses the power control system according to claim 1. Chae further discloses the control unit (100) is further configured to conduct discharging (“100” controls “20” to discharge “10” to the grid; Fig. 1) in a maximum efficiency range (range of “PCS efficiency (%)” ; Table 2; ¶ [120-128]) of the PCS (20). Chae does not disclose this discharging occurs “ when an electric energy of the power grid is insufficient for the discharging procedure ”. Rich teaches (see annotated Fig. 2 infra ) to conduct discharging (ESS discharging power “ P batt dis ” is used to supplement grid power “ P grid_contr ” ) when an electric energy of the power grid ( P grid_contr ) is insufficient (“no” response to “P EV < P grid_contr ”) for the discharging procedure (“P EV ” is the power needed for EV battery charging, i.e. the discharging procedure). Rich further teaches to conduct the discharging of the ESS when an electric energy of the power grid is insufficient for the discharging procedure to reduce stress on the power grid (Abstract) during high power peaks of loads ( section I. Introduction ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit disclosed by Chae to conduct the discharging of the ESS when an electric energy of the power grid is insufficient for the discharging procedure, as taught by Rich , to reduce stress on the power grid. Regarding Claim 9 , the combo of Chae & Rich teaches the power control system according to claim 8. Chae further discloses the control unit (100) is further configured to perform the charging procedure (“100” controls “20” to charge “10” from the grid; Fig. 1). Chae does not disclose the charging procedure is performed “if a battery voltage is not an optimal discharging voltage when the electric energy of the power grid is in surplus.”. Rich further teaches (see annotated Fig. 2, included supra ) to perform the charging procedure (“available power for BESS charging” indicates the ESS is charged with “ P batt ch ”) if a battery voltage is not an optimal discharging voltage (the charging procedure is performed regardless of the battery voltage; thus, these conditions include when the battery voltage is not an optimal discharging voltage) when the electric energy of the power grid ( P grid_contr ) is in surplus (“yes” response to “P EV < P grid_contr ”). Rich further teaches using the power grid’s surplus power to charge the ESS to reduce operational costs by optimizing the use of the ESS to store surplus grid contract power. (Section I. Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit disclosed by the combo of Chae & Rich to charge the battery when the power grid’s power is in surplus, as further taught by Rich , to reduce operational costs by optimizing the use of the ESS to store surplus grid power. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of Hau et al. (US 2020/0189404 A1; hereinafter “Hau”). Regarding Claim 10 , Chae discloses the power control system according to claim 1. Chae further discloses the control unit (100) is further configured to provide a management control to correspond to an optimal efficiency range (range of “PCS efficiency (%)” of Table 1; ¶ [120-128]) with respect to the power conversion by controlling charging/discharging (“final PCS input value” is input to the “battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220”; Fig. 2) of the energy storage system (ESS) (10). Chae does not disclose “ the energy storage system (ESS) further comprises a charger for electric vehicle charging ”. As addressed supra , Chae discloses the control unit is further configured to provide a management control to correspond to an optimal efficiency range with respect to power conversion by controlling charging/discharging of the ESS . However, Chae does not disclose the charging/discharging of the ESS is controlled “according to an electric vehicle charging speed”. Hau teaches the energy storage system (ESS) (Fig. 6B, including “battery 13”) further comprises a charger (“charging station 10”; Fig. 6B) for electric vehicle charging (for charging “vessel 1” of Fig. 6B; ¶ [66]: “equally applicable to land based electric or hybrid electric vehicles, or electric aircraft”). Hau further teaches controlling charging/discharging (“13” may be either charged with power “P L ” or discharged to supply power “ P boost ”, depending on “ P ferry ”; Fig. 6B) of the energy storage system (ESS) (13) according to a charging speed (“ P ferry ” is the speed of energy flow, i.e. the power to charge the electric vehicle “1”; Fig. 6B; ¶ [47]: “for rapid charging, the charging system 10 comprises a plurality of energy storage modules 13”). of the electric vehicle (1). Hau further teaches applying the power control system to an electric vehicle charging system to broaden the industrial applications to include charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, electric vessels, and electric aircrafts in remote locations where the power grid may not otherwise support high-speed charging (¶ [66]). It would have bee n obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control system disclosed by Chae to incorporate an EV charger and to charge/discharge the ESS as necessary to support EV charging, as taught by Hau, to broaden the industrial applications of the ESS to support high-speed charging in remote locations. Claims 11 -12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of the IEEE article “Qiu” (X. Qiu et al. , A Field Validated Model of a Vanadium Redox Flow Battery for Microgrids , July 2014, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 1592-1601) . Regarding Claim 11 , Chae discloses a power conversion unit efficiency control system (Fig. 1; ¶ [65]: “stand-alone microgrid”; see annotated Fig. 1, included supra in claim 1’s prior art rejection) comprising the following fea tures. Chae further discloses an energy storage system (ESS) (“energy storage device 10”; Fig. 1) comprising a battery (¶ [66]: “10 such as a battery energy storage system (BESS) (hereinafter, referred to "battery")”). Chae further discloses a power conversion unit (“20”; interpreted to be the PCS, as discussed supra in the 112(b) section) connected to a power grid (“distribution line” on each side of “transformer”; Fig. 1) and the ESS (10). Chae further discloses a power conversion unit (“20”; interpreted to be the PCS, as discussed supra in the 112(b) section) operatively connected to the power conversion system (PCS) (“20”, inherently connected to itself). Chae further discloses the power conversion unit (“20”, as controlled by “microgrid operation device 100”; Figs. 1-2) performs a control to achieve power conversion according to a specific charging/discharging range ( range of “PCS target output value (kW)”; Table 1 ) of the ESS (10) so as to satisfy an optimal efficiency range (Table 1 relates the “PCS efficiency (%)” range to the associated “final PCS input value (kW)”; ¶ [123]: “PCS efficiency consideration unit 230 receives a PCS target output value primarily calculated in the battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220, and provides the final PCS input value to the battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220 by using a table in which the output ratio (%) and the PCS efficiency (%) are matched”) of the PCS (20) by considering power efficiency (¶ [120-128]). Though Chae discloses an energy storage system (ESS) comprising a battery, Chae does not disclose “ an energy storage system (ESS) comprising a vanadium ion battery (VIB) ”. Qiu teaches an energy storage system (ESS) comprising a vanadium ion battery (VIB) ( section III. Vanadium Redox Battery: “T h e vanadium redox battery (VRB) is an electrical energy storage system based on the vanadium-based redox regenerative fuel cell that converts chemical energy into electrical energy ). Qiu further teaches using a vanadium ion battery in an ESS for several advantages including high efficiency, high scalability, fast response, long lifetime, and low maintenance requirements (section I. Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ESS disclosed by Chae to incorporate a vanadium ion battery , for high efficiency, high scalability, fast response, long lifetime, and low maintenance requirements . Regarding Claim 12 , the combo of Chae & Qiu teaches the power conversion unit efficiency control system according to claim 11. Chae further discloses the specific charging/discharging range ( range of “final PCS input value (kW)”) of the ESS (10) is determined according to a specification (per ¶ [120-128], the “final PCS input value (kW)” is calculated from the PCS specification values related to “PCS equipment capacity” and “PCS efficiency”) of the PCS (20). Regarding Claim 14 , the combo of Chae & Qiu teaches the power conversion unit efficiency control system according to claim 11. Chae further discloses the power conversion unit ( 20 ) performs a control so that the ESS ( 10 ) is charged or discharged when the optimal efficiency range (Table 1 relates the “PCS efficiency (%)” range to the associated “final PCS input value (kW)”; ¶ [123]: “PCS efficiency consideration unit 230 receives a PCS target output value primarily calculated in the battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220, and provides the final PCS input value to the battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220 by using a table in which the output ratio (%) and the PCS efficiency (%) are matched”) of the PCS (20) is in a range of 50 kW to 200 kW ( Table 1 shows a the “PCS target output value” for optimal efficiency above 80% ranges from 25 kW to 500 kW, which overlaps the claimed range ) . Though Chae discloses the optimal efficiency range of the PCS is in a range of 50 kW to 200 kW, Chae does not provide details of the currents involved. Specifically, Chae does not disclose the underlined portion of “the power conversion unit performs a control so that the ESS is charged or discharged in a range of 50 A to 200 A ”. Thus, the combo of Chae & Qiu teaches the power conversion unit performs a control so that the ESS (“VRB energy storage system”) is charged or discharged in a range of 50 A to 200 A (Fig. 12 shows the stack current of 40-100 A for charging or discharging the “VRB”, which is within the claimed range) when operating within the optimal efficiency range (Fig. 12 shows the stack current of 40-100 A results in optimal efficiency of above 70%). Qiu further teaches the optimal charging/discharging rate enables efficient operation ( optimal efficiency range shown in Fig. 12 ) of the power conversion unit efficiency control system using a vanadium ion battery (“vanadium redox flow battery (VRB)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power conversion unit disclosed by the combo of Chae & Qiu to charge/discharge the vanadium-based ESS at 40-100 A , as further taught by Qiu , to enable efficient operation of the power conversion unit efficiency control system . Thus, the combo of Chae & Qiu teaches the power conversion unit performs a control so that the ESS is charged or discharged in a range of 50 A to 200 A when the optimal efficiency range of the PCS is in a range of 50 kW to 200 kW. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of the IEEE article “Qiu” (X. Qiu et al. , A Field Validated Model of a Vanadium Redox Flow Battery for Microgrids , July 2014, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 1592 -1601) and the article by “ Uhrig ” ( Uhrig et al., Lithium-based vs. Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries – A Comparison for Home Storage Systems , March 2016, 10th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference). NOTE: The article by Uhrig can currently be accessed at the following hyperlink: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311002656_Lithium-based_vs_Vanadium_Redox_Flow_Batteries_-_A_Comparison_for_Home_Storage_Systems Regarding Claim 13 , the combo of Chae & Qiu teaches the power conversion unit efficiency control system according to claim 11. The combo of Chae and Qiu teaches the vanadium ion battery (incorporated per Qiu) has a charging/discharging (C-rate) range ( from Qiu Table II: 0 up to 0.25 C; 5 kW / 20 kWh = 0.25 C). Chae further discloses the power control system (Fig. 1) is capable of performing a control (PCS “20” is controlled by “microgrid operation device 100”) so as to satisfy the optimal efficiency range (range of “final PCS input value (kW)”) of the PCS (20). Chae does not disclose “a feature in which the vanadium ion battery has a wider charging/discharging (C-rate) range than a lithium-ion battery (LIB)”. Uhrig teaches a feature in which the vanadium ion battery (“vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB)”) has a wider charging/discharging (C-rate) range (Fig. 4b shows that the VRFB can provide charging/discharging for a wider range of operation hours than the LiB ; thus, the VRFB has a higher c-rate compared to the LIB after significant operation hours) than a lithium-ion battery (LIB) (“ lithium ion battery ( LiB )”). Uhrig further teaches using the VRB because it provides extended energy delivery over time compared to the LiB (section 3.1.2. Operation hours). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vanadium ion battery disclosed by the combo of Chae & Qiu to have a higher C-rate range over time as compared to a deteriorated lithium-ion battery , as taught by Uhrig , for extended energy delivery over time. Claims 15 and 18 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2019/0181644 A1) in view of Hau et al. (US 2020/0189404 A1 ; hereinafter “Hau” ) . Regarding Claim 15 , Chae discloses a control method (¶ [1]: “method of operating a microgrid by considering efficiency of a power conditioning system (PCS)”) of a power conversion unit (“power conditioning system (PCS) 20” , with control from “microgrid operation device 100” ; Fig s . -2 1) , the contorl control method comprising the following. Chae further discloses the power conversion unit (20 & 100 ) performs a management control to correspond to an optimal efficiency range ( range of “PCS efficiency (%)” of Table 1 ; ¶ [120-128]) with respect to power conversion by controlling charging/discharging (“final PCS input value” is input to the “battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220”; Fig. 2) of the ESS (“energy storage device 10”; Fig. 1). Chae further discloses using the power conversion unit (20 & 100) to provide a control to achieve the power conversion according to a specific charging/discharging range (range of “PCS target output value (kW)”; Table 1; ¶ [120-128]) of the ESS (10) so as to satisfy the optimal efficiency range (Table 1 relates the “PCS efficiency (%)” range to the associated “final PCS input value (kW)”; ¶ [123]: “PCS efficiency consideration unit 230 receives a PCS target output value primarily calculated in the battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220, and provides the final PCS input value to the battery charging/discharging amount calculation unit 220 by using a table in which the output ratio (%) and the PCS efficiency (%) are matched”) of a power conversion system (PCS) (20 & 100) connected to the ESS (10) by considering power efficiency (¶ [120-128]). Chae does not disclose “ using the power conversion unit to provide: a control of transferring at least one of a power of a power grid and a power of an energy storage system (ESS) to an electric vehicle charging system ”. As addressed supra , Chae discloses a management control to correspond to an optimal efficiency range with respect to power conversion by controlling charging/discharging of the ESS . However, Chae does not disclose the charging/discharging of the ESS is controlled “according to an electric vehicle charging speed”. Hau teaches using the power conversion unit (combo of “ converter 14” & “ transformer 15”; Fig. 6B) to provide a control of transferring at least one of a power of a power grid (“ P grid ” with max “ P peak ” from power grid “5”; Fig. 6B) and a power of an energy storage system (ESS) (power “ P boost ” from ESS “ battery 13”; Fig. 6B) to an electric vehicle charging system (“ charging station 10”; Fig. 6B) . Hau further teaches controlling charging/discharging (“13” may be either charged with power “P L ” or discharged to supply power “ P boost ”, depending on “ P ferry ”; Fig. 6B) of the ESS ( 13 ) according to an electric vehicle charging speed (“ P ferry ” is the speed of energy flow, i.e. the power to charge the electric vehicle “1”; Fig. 6B ; ¶ [47]: