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 1/2/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 10/3/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are pending.
No claim(s) is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9 is/are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 1/2/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 5 in “Remarks” Applicant’s limitations of controlling in claim 1 and describes some selections of figures and paragraphs from Crabtree. Further, Applicant states in Pg. 5-6 that Crabtree’s Para. 96 does not teach Applicant’s controlling transfer of energy, including selecting a set-point, based on electrical tariff change.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Crabtree teaches controlling transfer of energy based on electrical tariff change. This is because Crabtree discloses in Para. 96 that load is controlled such that connected nodes transfer energy to subsequent, i.e. a second set-point, and that load is controlled based on tariffs that are regulated. Because tariffs are used in the control of transfer of energy, and energy is transferred, based on the tariffs, through a network of nodes, which includes a second set point, thus, Crabtree teaches controlling transfer of energy based on electrical tariff change as claimed.
Applicant states in Pg. 6 in “Remarks” that Crabtree’s Para. 96 does not teach changes in the electrical tariff price.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Crabtree discloses changes in electrical tariff price. This is because Crabtree discloses in Para. 96 regulated tariffs on which control system is based. Thus, if tariffs change, the control would respond accordingly. Thus, Crabtree teaches Applicant’s set-point being selected based on a change in an electrical tariff.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/3/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crabtree et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0332373) (hereinafter “Crabtree”).
Regarding claim 1 and corresponding method claim 5 and system claim 9, Crabtree teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Para. 96 - - distributed software system is used to optimize energy usage, i.e. stored instructions are executed by processors)
to control fluctuations in the energy use at an electric load location, (Para. 129 - - energy usage is adjusted, i.e. controlled, in order to control fluctuations that cause variance in energy usage)
by performing the steps of: monitoring power fluctuations in an electric line that is coupled to an electric load location; (Para. 129 - - monitored electric load has power fluctuation)
and controlling a transfer of energy from or to the electric line from an energy source by controlling the transfer of energy to a first set-point, (Para. 96 - - load is controlled such that energy is transferred from one node to a first set-point)
and controlling the transfer of energy to a second set-point, (Para. 96 - - load is controlled such that connected nodes transfer energy to a second set-point)
wherein the second set-point is selected based on a change in an electrical tariff. (Para. 96 - - load is controlled based on tariffs)
Regarding claim 2 and corresponding method claim 6 and system claim 10, Crabtree further teaches wherein the selection of the second set-point is based on a simulation that includes electrical power tariff information. (Para. 96 - - load is controlled based on tariffs)
Regarding claim 3 and corresponding method claim 7 and system claim 11, Crabtree further teaches wherein the selection of the second set-point is based on state-of-charge data received from the energy source. (Para. 212 - - energy required for charging, i.e. state of charge data, is used)
Regarding claim 4 and corresponding method claim 8 and system claim 12, Crabtree further teaches wherein the selection of the second set-point comprises receiving forecast information that is derived from forecasted coefficient data or historical coefficient data. (Para. 106 - -historical data is used)
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing 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