DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling an amendment on 12/26/2025.
The application has claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 present and have been amended. Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled. All present claims have been examined.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the claim amendments.
This action is made Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation in line 4 “function block using at least one the operational constraints”, seem to have a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation in line 4 “receive data one or more”, seem to have a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation in lines 5 “power output and its efficiency that generated by each”, seem to have a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation in lines 4-5 “voltage output that available”, seem to have a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation in lines 5 “power output and its efficiency that generated by each”, seem to have a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20150039145) in view of Reddy et al. (US 20230060100).
In regards to claim 1, Yang teaches a system of controlling a microgrid network, wherein the system comprises: a plurality of distributed energy resources configured to supply electrical power to the microgrid network (see para 19: microgrid system and controlling including multiple DER); wherein the microgrid network is further configured to receive the power supply from an electrical grid (see para 19, 24: operates in different modes including grid-connected mode receiving power from grid); a plurality of loads coupled to the microgrid network and to the plurality of distributed energy resources (see para 19-20: multiple DERs and loads connected); and a controller coupled to the microgrid network, to the plurality of distributed energy resources and to the plurality of loads, wherein the controller comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute a dispatch controller function block contained in the memory wherein:
the dispatch controller function block is configured to cause the processor to: receive a power demand from the plurality of loads coupled to the microgrid network (see para 20, 48-49, 81, 130, 168: the systems is controlled so that it can receive and calculated total demand and meet the demand),
at least one operational constraint corresponding to the plurality of distributed energy resources (see at least para 25-26, 48, 81, 120: taking constrains in consideration to produce the required energy).
Although Yang teaches obtaining grid data and using as part of the data for controlling and scheduling power management (see para 26-28, 48) and that the controller is configured to determine if sufficient electrical power can be imported from the electrical grid (see para 6, 17, 19, 24, 48: “in the grid-connected mode, the control objective ensures the total power generation capacity of all of the controllable distributed electric generators having an `on` status as indicated by parameter S.sub.dg of the distributed energy resource schedule is greater than a critical load of the microgrid for the defined time window”. See para 22-24, 48, 147, 171: adjusting generation output of the DERs in the system to be able to meet the load needs), Yang doesn’t specifically teach operational constraint comprising output setpoints; at least one electrical grid operational constraint comprising import setpoints and export setpoints provided by the electrical grid; determine, using the at least one operational constraint, if there is sufficient electrical power available from the plurality of distributed energy resources to power the loads; determine, using the at least one electrical grid operational constraint, if sufficient power supply is available to be imported from the electrical grid for use by the plurality of loads; determine, using the at least one operational constraint and the at least one electrical grid operational constraint adjustment required for at least one of the plurality of distributed energy resources and the electrical grid to supply the electrical power to the plurality of the loads; control, based on the determined adjustment, the output setpoints of at least one distributed energy source from the plurality of distributed energy resources to match energy supply requirement for the plurality of loads; and control, based on the determined adjustment, the import setpoints and the export setpoints of the electrical grid to match energy supply requirement for the plurality of loads.
Reddy teaches operational constraint comprising output setpoints; at least one electrical grid operational constraint comprising import setpoints and export setpoints provided by the electrical grid; determine, using the at least one operational constraint, if there is sufficient electrical power available from the plurality of distributed energy resources to power the loads (see at least para 34: “one or more aspects of such characteristics (e.g., current and/or day-ahead prices by hour of day or the like, energy import/export limits or rules, energy concessions, trading, or commitments, etc.) may be retrieved. “Also, para 44; “highest priority group of constraints may include the following. Net power provided by the hybrid power system 100 should match the power required by the load 110, whereby the net power may include both active and reactive power”. “Power suppled from or to the power grid connection 160 should not exceed import/export limits, respectively”), determine, using the at least one electrical grid operational constraint, if sufficient power supply is available to be imported from the electrical grid for use by the plurality of loads; determine, using the at least one operational constraint and the at least one electrical grid operational constraint adjustment required for at least one of the plurality of distributed energy resources and the electrical grid to supply the electrical power to the plurality of the loads; control, based on the determined adjustment, the output setpoints of at least one distributed energy source from the plurality of distributed energy resources to match energy supply requirement for the plurality of loads; and control, based on the determined adjustment, the import setpoints and the export setpoints of the electrical grid to match energy supply requirement for the plurality of loads (see at least para 34: “one or more aspects of such characteristics (e.g., current and/or day-ahead prices by hour of day or the like, energy import/export limits or rules, energy concessions, trading, or commitments, etc.) may be retrieved. Also see para 37. Also see para 44: “Net power provided by the hybrid power system 100 should match the power required by the load 110, whereby the net power may include both active and reactive power. The power provided by each power asset and/or power asset group 115 should not exceed a respective power rating. The PV devices 151 and the gensets 146 (and, for example, fuel cells or the like) should have non-negative loading, e.g., no reverse loading. The PV group 150 should be associated with at least one anchor source. Power suppled from or to the power grid connection 160 should not exceed import/export limits, respectively. The genset group 145 should operate with reactive power below a predetermined reactive power limit (e.g., that is based on a reactive capacity curve associated with a genset 146 and/or the genset group, and/or on associated power factor range limits or thresholds). The power assets should operate with an apparent power below a predetermined apparent power limit. The hybrid power system 100 should operate according to predetermined resiliency and/or redundancy requirements, e.g., an excess of power assets to replace power assets that may operate below nominal”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Reddy and combine it with the teachings of Yang in order to obtain and use constrains data and adjustment data to manage and supply enough energy, since it improves the power management process for the microgrid, in order to properly forecast and produced the required power (see para 44).
In regards to claim 11, the claim is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1. The claim contains the limitations as provided by the language on claim 1 in a method claim.
In regards to claims (3 and 13), Yang doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller causes the dispatch controller function block to determine using the electrical grid operational constraint and the import setpoints or the export setpoints limits if sufficient electrical power is being generated by the plurality of distributed energy resources to be exported to the electrical grid.
Reddy teaches wherein the controller causes the dispatch controller function block to determine using the electrical grid operational constraint and the import setpoints or the export setpoints limits if sufficient electrical power is being generated by the plurality of distributed energy resources to be exported to the electrical grid (see at least para 34, 44 and 57: teaches grid data “obtain grid power cost/emissions data for the grid power connection 160. The grid power cost/emissions data may include, for example, cost or revenue, respectively for import or export of power via the power grid connection” to properly control distribution of power).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Reddy and combine it with the teachings of Yang in order to obtain and use grid constrains data, since it improves the power management process for the microgrid, in order to properly forecast and produced the power that can be of revenue (see para 44, 57).
In regards to claims (5 and 15), Yang further teaches wherein the plurality of distributed energy resources comprises at least one dispatchable energy resource (see abstract and at least para 19: multiple dispatchable energy resources (DER)).
In regards to claims (6 and 16), Yang further teaches wherein the dispatchable energy resource comprises a plurality of solar energy units and the dispatch controller function block is further configured to receive data from one or more solar energy units that are on-line and available to the microgrid network and the total solar power being produced by the solar energy units and available to the plurality of loads (see abstract and at least para 19: multiple dispatchable energy resources including solar. See at last para 22-24, 48, 147, 171: adjusting generation output of the DERs in the system to be able to meet the load needs. Teaches balance equations to determine and schedule power delivery from the systems DERs based on the load needs. Monitors each DRE input and output).
In regards to claims (7 and 17), Yang further teaches wherein the dispatchable energy resource includes a plurality of wind generator units and the dispatch controller function block is further configured to receive data from one or more wind generator units that are on-line and available to the microgrid network and the total wind generated power being produced by the plurality of wind generator units and available to the loads (see abstract and at least para 19: multiple dispatchable energy resources including wind turbines. See at last para 22-24, 48, 147, 171: adjusting generation output of the DERs in the system to be able to meet the load needs. Teaches balance equations to determine and schedule power delivery from the systems DERs based on the load needs. Monitors each DRE input and output).
In regards to claims (9 and 19), Yang further teaches wherein the plurality of distributed energy resources comprises at least one electronically coupled energy resource (see at least para 22: electrical storage devices).
In regards to claims (10 and 20), Yang discloses wherein the electronically coupled energy resource includes at least one battery energy storage system (BESS) capable of storing and transmitting electrical energy and the dispatch controller function block is further configured to receive data from the BESS of its state of charge and voltage output that available to the plurality of load (see at least para 22: electrical storage devices, “The charging/discharging status of the electrical energy storage devices indicates whether each electrical energy storage device is storing (charging) energy or releasing (discharging) energy. The rate indicates how quickly each electrical energy storage device charges or discharges energy”).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20150039145) in view of Reddy et al. (US 20230060100) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20160313716).
In regards to claims (4 and 14), Yang doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller causes the processor to send an alarm to an operators station when it is determined by the dispatch controller function block using at least one the operational constraints from the plurality of distributed energy resources that the electrical power available from the plurality of distributed energy resources have been exhausted and the import setpoints from the electrical grid will not sufficiently provide electrical power to the plurality of loads signaling an energy shortfall for the microgrid network.
Chen teaches wherein the controller causes the processor to send an alarm to an operators station when it is determined by the dispatch controller function block using at least one the operational constraints from the plurality of distributed energy resources that the electrical power available from the plurality of distributed energy resources have been exhausted and the import setpoints from the electrical grid will not sufficiently provide electrical power to the plurality of loads signaling an energy shortfall for the microgrid network. (see at least para 78-87, 120: Chen teaches providing alarms for different limit violations (interpreted as setpoints) and means to correct the violations and teaches that the system can provide alarms for shortfall).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen and combine it with the teachings of Yang in order to obtain and use grid constrains data and providing notification system with alarms, since by doing so, it improves the power management process for the microgrid, in order to properly alert and correct any problem or violation associated with the obtain constrains (see para 78, 120).
In regards to claims (8 and 18), Yang teaches wherein the dispatchable energy resource includes a plurality of generator units and the dispatch controller function block is further configured to receive data from one or more number of generator units that are on-line and available to the microgrid network and an actual power output and its efficiency that generated by each on-line generator unit and available to the plurality of loads (see abstract and at least para 19: multiple dispatchable energy resources including wind turbines. See at last para 22-24, 48, 147, 171: adjusting generation output of the DERs in the system to be able to meet the load needs. Teaches balance equations to determine and schedule power delivery from the systems DERs based on the load needs. Monitors each DRE input and output).
Yang doesn’t specifically teach diesel generator units.
Chen teaches diesel generator units (see at least para 10, 24, 31: “The microgrid system 116, as mentioned above, can include distributed renewable generating resources 108′ (as well as conventional generating unit types) such as, for example, wind turbine units, solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, energy storage systems (ESS), fuel cell units, micro turbine units, diesel units, and combined heat & power units”.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen and combine it with the teachings of Yang in order to include diesel units as part of the number of power generating units of the microgrid system, since it improves the power generating and management system of the microgrid by including units that can provide reliable, on-demand backup power when intermittent renewable energy sources, like solar or wind, are not available.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118