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 .
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 is/are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. The prior-filed application is U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/333,998 (filed on 4/22/2022).
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/21/2023 and 8/1/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
each instance of a “controller configured to” perform some action in claims 1-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0119579) (hereinafter “Jin”).
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 a controller 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)
Regarding claim 2, Jin further teaches wherein the controller is 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 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 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 a 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 first 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)
Regarding claim 14, Jin teaches a method comprising: generating a first control signal at least partially responsive to a 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)
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)
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) 5-6, 9-12, 15 and 18-20 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 5, Jin teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 1.
But Jin does not explicitly teach to generate the first control signal and the second control signal at least partially based on a variational mode decomposition of the request signal.
However, Short further teaches to generate the first control signal and the second control signal at least partially based on 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 6, Jin teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 1.
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)
But Jin does not explicitly teach teaches to: generate a residual error signal at least partially responsive to a difference…; and provide the residual error signal to the first energy source.
However, 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)
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 9, Jin teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 1.
Jin further teaches wherein the controller is 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)
But Jin does not explicitly teach wherein the first energy source comprises a third energy source and a fourth energy source,
However, Short further teaches wherein the first energy source comprises a third energy source and a fourth energy source, (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 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, the combination of Jin and Short teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 1 and 9.
Jin further teaches to generate the third control signal at least partially responsive to a capability of the third energy source; and wherein the controller is 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 15, Jin teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 14.
But Jin does not explicitly teach to generate the first control signal and the second control signal at least partially based on a variational mode decomposition of the request signal.
However, Short further teaches performing a variational mode decomposition relative to the request signal to generate the first control signal and the second control 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 18, Jin teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 14.
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)
But Jin does not explicitly teach teaches generating a residual error signal at least partially responsive to a difference…; and provide the residual error signal to the first energy source.
However, 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)
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 19, Jin teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 14.
But Jin does not explicitly teach generating the first control signal and the second control signal comprises generating the first control signal and the second control signal at least partially based on a variational mode decomposition of the request signal.
However, Short further teaches generating the first control signal and the second control signal comprises generating the first control signal and the second control signal at least partially based on 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 20, Jin teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s) 14.
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)
But Jin does not explicitly teach wherein the first energy source comprises a third energy source and a fourth energy source,
However, Short further teaches wherein the first energy source comprises a third energy source and a fourth energy source, (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).
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).
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.
Conclusion
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