DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 5/21/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 2/26/2026 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 16-18 and 20-23 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-7, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 5, 15 and 19 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 is/are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 5/21/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 8-9 in “Remarks” regarding 112(f) rejection that claims 1-12 should not be rejected based on the new amendments.
Examiner respectfully notes that the 112(f) in the prior office action was a matter of claim interpretation and not a rejection. Nevertheless, Applicant’s amendments have also made it no longer needed to do the 112(f) claim interpretation as was outlined in the prior office action.
Applicant further states in Pg. 10-11 in “Remarks” regarding claims 1, 13 and 14 that Jin does not teach the newly amended limitation of variational mode decomposition. The same argument is presented in Pg. 11-13 regarding claims 2-4, 16 and 17.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the previous 102 rejection over Jin has been replaced by a 103 rejection over Jin in view of Short as outlined below, where Short teaches the newly amended limitation (Para. 167).
Applicant further states in Pg. 13-14 in “Remarks” regarding claims 5, 6, 9-12, 15 and 18-20 that hindsight cannot be used
Examiner respectfully disagrees because, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further states in Pg. 15 in “Remarks” regarding claims 6, 9-12, 18 and 20 that Short does not teach Applicant’s claimed variational mode decomposition, but instead teaches unified-domain source-signal separation and super-resolution processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Short teaches signal decomposition (Para. 167), and not signal separation. For variational mode being specific to claiming using intrinsic mode functions, that has been addressed in the newly added claims 21-23 where Huang, and not Short, teaches intrinsic mode functions (Huang, Col. 8 Lines 47-55 where signal is decomposed into intrinsic mode functions).
Applicant further states in Pg. 15 in “Remarks” regarding claim 6 that Short does not teach Applicant’s residual error because Short does not teach the residual error being a control signal provided to the first energy source to compensate for the difference between requested second portion and second energy output.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Short has been cited only to teach to generate a residual error signal at least partially responsive to a difference (Short, Para. 156, 244 where residual error is based on a difference) and to provide the residual error signal to the first energy source (Short, Para. 156, 244 where the residual error is used). But Short has not been cited for the rest of the limitation, which instead has been taught by Jin, where Jin teaches a difference between the second portion of the requested amount of energy indicated by the second control signal and the second energy output of the second energy source (Jin, Para. 32 where change of output needed to meet an imbalance is a difference between amount of energy needed, i.e. requested, and output of second energy source).
Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “compensating”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further states in Pg. 16 in “Remarks” regarding claims 9-12 and 20 that Short’s source decomposition does not teach Applicant’s third and fourth energy sources with respective control signals generated from the first control signal to dispatch respective sources.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is Jin, and not Short that teaches the above limitation (Jin, Fig. 1 - - two more control signals, i.e. third and fourth, depend upon first control signal which is used to control first energy device 122), while Short taught the rest of the claim. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, it is the combination of Jin and Short, and not Short taken alone, that teaches the claim limitations.
Applicant further states in Pg. 16 in “Remarks” that Short’s near real time signal separation does not explain why Jin’s invention could be modified by Short, and that the rejection therefore relies on hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Short would provide near real time signal separation (Short, Para. 8) modifying Jin’s invention to thus teach Applicant’s claim.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further states in Pg. 17-18 in “Remarks” regarding claims 21-23 that the prior art of Jin and Short does not teach the newly added claim/limitation of intrinsic mode functions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is the newly cited art of Huang, and not the arts of Jin and Short, that teach the new claims (Huang, Col. 8 Lines 47-55 where signal is decomposed into intrinsic mode functions)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0119579) (hereinafter “Jin”) in view of Short et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0287422) (hereinafter “Short”).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches a system comprising: a first energy source configured to provide a first energy output; (Fig. 1 - - second energy storage device 122 is a first energy source which provides a first energy output)
a second energy source configured to provide a second energy output, (Fig. 1 - - first energy device 120 is a second energy source which provides second output)
the first energy source capable of changing the first energy output more quickly than the second energy source is capable of changing the second energy output; (Fig. 9, Para. 25 - - second energy device 122 is faster, i.e. capable of changing energy output more quickly, than first energy device 120)
and one or more processors operably coupled to memory storing machine-executable code, the one or more processors being configured (Fig. 2 - - processor, coupled with memory, is configured)
to: receive a request signal indicative of a requested amount of energy; (Fig. 1, Para. 41 - - regulation signal is a signal requesting an amount of energy)
…generate a first control signal at least partially responsive to the…request signal, the first control signal indicative of a first portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the first energy source; provide the first control signal to the first energy source; (Fig. 1 - - controller generates first control signal for energy device 122, i.e. first energy source, which depends on, i.e. indicative of, requested regulation signal 112, and where the first control signal is provided to the first energy source, i.e. second energy device 122)
generate a second control signal at least partially responsive to…the request signal, the second control signal indicative of a second portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the second energy source; and provide the second control signal to the second energy source. (Fig. 1 - - controller generates second control signal for energy device 120, i.e. second energy source, which depends on, i.e. indicative of, requested regulation signal 112, and where the second control signal is provided to the second energy source, i.e. first energy device 120)
But Jin does not explicitly teach to generate a variational mode decomposition of the request signal;
However, Short further teaches to generate a variational mode decomposition of the request signal; (Para. 167 - - signal decomposition is used)
Jin and Short are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain processing control signals in electrical grids.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Jin, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Short.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide near real time signal separation, as suggested by Short (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Jin further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the first control signal at least partially responsive to a first capability of the first energy source to change the first energy output (Para. 25 - - controller controls first energy source to change energy output based on the fast capability of the fast unit, i.e. first energy source)
and wherein the controller is further configured to generate the second control signal at least partially responsive to a second capability of the second energy source to change the second energy output. (Para. 25 - - controller controls second energy source to change energy output based on the slower capability of the slow unit, i.e. second energy source)
Regarding claim 3, Jin further teaches wherein the first energy source comprises one or more of: one or more batteries and one or more ultracapacitors (Para. 25 - - fast unit, i.e. first energy source, can be battery, super capacitor, etc.)
and wherein the second energy source comprises one or more generators. (Para. 25 - - second energy source is the slow unit that can be a conventional generation unit, i.e. generator)
Regarding claim 4, Jin further teaches wherein the request signal is a control signal from a servicing authority. (Para. 25 - - regulation signal 112 indicates output change needed in the system in order to meet an imbalance on an electrical power grid, where such a regulation signal, i.e. control signal, is generated by servicing authorities in order to maintain electrical power grids)
Regarding claim 6, Jin further teaches a difference between the second portion of the requested amount of energy indicated by the second control signal and the second energy output of the second energy source; (Para. 32 - - change of output needed to meet an imbalance is a difference between amount of energy needed, i.e. requested, and output of second energy source)
Short further teaches to: generate a residual error signal at least partially responsive to a difference (Para. 156, 244 - - residual error is based on a difference)
and provide the residual error signal to the first energy source. (Para. 156, 244 - - residual error is used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide near real time signal separation, as suggested by Short (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Jin further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a third control signal at least partially responsive to the first control signal, and wherein the controller is further configured to generate a fourth control signal at least partially responsive to the first control signal. (Fig. 1 - - two more control signals, i.e. third and fourth, depend upon first control signal which is used to control first energy device 122)
Short further teaches wherein the first energy source comprises a third energy source and a fourth energy source, (Para. 167 - - signal decomposition is used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide near real time signal separation, as suggested by Short (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jin and Short teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 1 and 9.
Jin does not explicitly teach, but Short further teaches to generate the third control signal and the fourth control signal at least partially based on a variational mode decomposition of the first control signal. (Para. 167 - - signal decomposition is used)
Regarding claim 11, Jin further teaches to generate the third control signal at least partially responsive to a capability of the third energy source; and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the fourth control signal at least partially responsive to a capability of the fourth energy source. (Fig. 1 - - third and fourth signals, i.e. branching out of first energy device which depends or is controlled by first control signal, are according to the needs of the third and fourth entities respectively)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jin and Short teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 1, 9 and 11.
Jin further teaches wherein the third energy source comprises one or more batteries and wherein the fourth energy source comprises one or more ultracapacitors. (Para. 25 - - fast unit, i.e. first energy source, can be battery, super capacitor, i.e. ultracapacitor)
Regarding claim 13, Jin teaches a controller comprising: a first output terminal configured to provide a first control signal to a first energy source; (Fig. 1 - - second energy storage device 122 is a first energy source which provides a first energy output)
a second output terminal configured to provide a second control signal to a second energy source; (Fig. 1 - - first energy device 120 is a second energy source which provides second output)
and circuitry configured to:…generate the first control signal to be provided to the first energy source via the first output terminal at least partially responsive to…the request signal and at least partially responsive to a first capability of the first energy source to change a first energy output of the first energy source, the first control signal indicative of a first portion of a requested amount of energy to be provided by the first energy source; (Fig. 1 - - controller generates first control signal for energy device 122, i.e. first energy source, which depends on, i.e. indicative of, requested regulation signal 112, and where the first control signal is provided to the first energy source, i.e. second energy device 122; Fig. 1, Para. 41 - - regulation signal is a signal requesting an amount of energy)
and generate the second control signal to be provided to the second energy source via the second output terminal at least partially responsive to…the request signal and at least partially responsive to a second capability of the second energy source to change a second energy output of the second energy source, the second control signal indicative of a second portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the second energy source. (Fig. 1 - - controller generates second control signal for energy device 120, i.e. second energy source, which depends on, i.e. indicative of, requested regulation signal 112, and where the second control signal is provided to the second energy source, i.e. first energy device 120; Fig. 1, Para. 41 - - regulation signal is a signal requesting an amount of energy)
But Jin does not explicitly teach to generate a variational mode decomposition of a request signal;
However, Short further teaches to generate a variational mode decomposition of a request signal; (Para. 167 - - signal decomposition is used)
Jin and Short are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain processing control signals in electrical grids.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Jin, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Short.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide near real time signal separation, as suggested by Short (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Jin teaches a method comprising:…generating a first control signal at least partially responsive to…the request signal and at least partially responsive to a first capability of a first energy source to change a first energy output of the first energy source, the first control signal indicative of a first portion of a requested amount of energy to be provided by the first energy source; (Fig. 1 - - controller generates first control signal for energy device 122, i.e. first energy source, which depends on, i.e. indicative of, requested regulation signal 112, and where the first control signal is provided to the first energy source, i.e. second energy device 122; Fig. 1, Para. 41 - - regulation signal is a signal requesting an amount of energy)
and generating a second control signal at least partially responsive to…the request signal and at least partially responsive to a second capability of a second energy source to change a second energy output of the second energy source, the second control signal indicative of a second portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the second energy source. (Fig. 1 - - controller generates second control signal for energy device 120, i.e. second energy source, which depends on, i.e. indicative of, requested regulation signal 112, and where the second control signal is provided to the second energy source, i.e. first energy device 120; Fig. 1, Para. 41 - - regulation signal is a signal requesting an amount of energy)
But Jin does not explicitly teach to generate a variational mode decomposition of a request signal;
However, Short further teaches to generate a variational mode decomposition of a request signal; (Para. 167 - - signal decomposition is used)
Jin and Short are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain processing control signals in electrical grids.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Jin, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Short.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide near real time signal separation, as suggested by Short (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Jin further teaches receiving the request signal; providing the first control signal to the first energy source; and providing the second control signal to the second energy source. (Fig. 1, Para. 41 - - regulation signal, i.e. request signal is received; Fig. 1 - - the first control signal is provided to the first energy source, i.e. second energy device 122, and the second control signal is provided to the second energy source, i.e. first energy device 120)
Regarding claim 17, Jin further teaches providing the first control signal to the first energy source comprises providing the first control signal to one or more of: one or more batteries and one or more ultracapacitors; (Para. 25 - - fast unit, i.e. first energy source, can be battery, super capacitor, i.e. ultracapacitor)
and providing the second control signal to the second energy source comprises providing the second control signal to one or more generators. (Para. 25 - - second energy source is the slow unit that can be a conventional generation unit, i.e. generator)
Regarding claim 18, Jin further teaches a difference between the second portion of the requested amount of energy indicated by the second control signal and the second energy output of the second energy source; (Para. 32 - - change of output needed to meet an imbalance is a difference between amount of energy needed, i.e. requested, and output of second energy source)
Short further teaches to: generate a residual error signal at least partially responsive to a difference (Para. 156, 244 - - residual error is based on a difference)
and providing the residual error signal to the first energy source. (Para. 156, 244 - - residual error is used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide near real time signal separation, as suggested by Short (Para. 8).
Regarding claim 20, Jin further teaches further comprising: generating a third control signal at least partially responsive to the first control signal; generate a fourth control signal at least partially responsive to the first control signal; providing the third control signal to the third energy source; and providing the fourth control signal to the fourth energy source. (Fig. 1 - - two more control signals, i.e. third and fourth, depend upon first control signal which is used to control first energy device 122, where the third and fourth control signals control third and fourth entities)
Short further teaches wherein the first energy source comprises a third energy source and a fourth energy source, (Para. 167 - - signal decomposition is used)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide near real time signal separation, as suggested by Short (Para. 8).
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Short and further in view of Huang (U.S. Pat. No. 6,311,130) (hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 21 and corresponding claims 22 and 23, the combination of Jin and Short does not explicitly teach to generate the variational mode decomposition by decomposition of the request signal into intrinsic mode functions.
However, Huang teaches to generate the variational mode decomposition by decomposition of the request signal into intrinsic mode functions. (Col. 8 Lines 47-55 - - signal is decomposed into intrinsic mode functions)
Jin and Short and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They contain processing signals using computers.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by the combination of Jin and Short, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide intuitive, direct, a posteriori and adaptive computer implemented method to decompose signals, as suggested by Huang (Col. 3 Lines 56-63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
While Jin discloses controller for hybrid energy storage providing power to the grid including reducing wear on hybrid systems,
and while Short discloses improved measurement, entity and parameter estimation and path propagation effect measurement and mitigation in source signal separation,
none of these references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention, a system including:
Claim 7,
a first energy source configured to provide a first energy output;
a second energy source configured to provide a second energy output, the first energy source capable of changing the first energy output more quickly than the second energy source is capable of changing the second energy output; and
one or more processors operably coupled to memory storing machine-executable code, the one or more processors being configured to:
receive a request signal indicative of a requested amount of energy;
generate a variational mode decomposition of the request signal;
generate a first control signal at least partially responsive to the variational mode decomposition of the request signal, the first control signal indicative of a first portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the first energy source;
provide the first control signal to the first energy source;
generate a second control signal at least partially responsive to the variational mode decomposition of the request signal, the second control signal indicative of a second portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the second energy source; and
provide the second control signal to the second energy source.
wherein the first energy source comprises a third energy source and a fourth energy source,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a first weight indicative of a third portion of the first portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the third energy source, and
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a second weight indicative of a fourth portion of the first portion of the requested amount of energy to be provided by the fourth energy source.
It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Claim 8, being definite, further limiting, and fully enabled by the specification, depend on the above allowable claim(s) 7, and thus also recite allowable subject matter.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0275035 by Lu et al., which discloses automatic multi-object localization and/or vital sign monitoring (Title/Abstract).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights