DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to applicant’s arguments
Applicant’s main argument is that “Blevins does not disclose that the selection of an action influences a second decision layer in the manner claimed. Indeed, nothing in Blevins discloses or suggests that the state machine algorithm 200 has multiple decision layers, where an output of one decision layer is fed into the next decision layer. Thus, the combination of Marchegiani in view of Blevins would not result in use of a state machine having a priority function structure as amended claim 1 recites.”
It appears applicant’s argument is directed to the limitation where the second priority function receive input from the output of first priority function
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig.2 and para 30 of Blevins teach of a state machine 200, where the first layer/first priority function is to remove_source. Please see numeral 1 on Fig.2 and direction of the arrow. The output of this is going to 210 and available for input to another function (see para 30). This output is going to add_source function. Please see numeral 2 on Figure 2. Therefore, Blevins teaches two-step functions. Additionally, as disclosed in para. 30, priority is given to functions and the central state is affected by each one of the control algorithms. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that any function can be triggered first (based on the priority), affecting the balance. And a subsequent function can be triggered afterwards further affecting the power balance - and thus based on the previously triggered function(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
797
1149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 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 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 no obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,3-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchegiani et al. (US 20190341781 A1.), and in view of Blevins (US 20130282194 A1.).
As per claims 1,14, and 15, Marchegiani et al. teach
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors, facilitate performance of a method for monitoring a microgrid (para 178,182)
A system comprising one or more processors which, alone or in combination, are configured to provide for execution of a method (para 178, computer)
comprising:
receiving a plurality of inputs (PCS power conversion system is receiving inputs from the sources 1-6. Fig. 1, para 61)
using a state machine to determine an output based on the plurality of inputs (The monitoring system MON and the state machine MAS are exchanging measurements, commands and generating control function FC. Fig. 2, para 86 – para 87); and
outputting a control signal based on the output, (The state machine MAS activates and deactivates the control function based on the commands send and receive from the monitoring system MON. The control function FC sends the references of the subsystem and receive feedback be used as function input. Fig.2, para 89 - para 91)
wherein the plurality of inputs include a microgrid-side voltage measurement and a microgrid-side frequency measurement (The PCS is being adapted to control values for voltage and frequency, para 43. Calculating the difference from the current values and the reference values of frequency and voltage, para 118)
wherein the control signal is configured to control operation of the microgrid at a point of common coupling between the microgrid and a utility grid (The microgrid control system is being organized in different hierarchical level where the first control level receives power from different sources (utility grid) and the second control level cooperates with first control level and adapts to supply electric power to a distribution network – on-grid condition and off-grid condition (para 38). Microgrid is transitioning from off-grid to on-grid mode or vice versa based on the moment when the MC verifies if the network is available (para 174). Microgrid is able to set to on-grid only when the utility grid and microgrid are connected to each other.).
wherein using the state machine to determine the output based on the plurality of inputs further comprises determining the output based on at least a first priority function and a second priority function, (Marchegiani et al. teach control functions managed by automatic OADP algorithm and being executed according to their priority orders. Marchegiani et. al. also teach the first priority function and the second priority function for the microgrid controller state machine to determine the control/output. (Fig. 3, para 110-114)
Marchegiani et al. do not specify that wherein the first priority function receives one or more of the plurality of inputs to determine a first priority function output, and
wherein the second priority function receives one or more of the plurality of inputs and the first priority function output to determine a second priority function output.
However, Blevins in the same field of endeavor, teaches an algorithm as a state machine used in the microgrid control system wherein the first priority function receives one or more of the plurality of inputs to determine a first priority function output, and
wherein the second priority function receives one or more of the plurality of inputs and the first priority function output to determine a second priority function output (Fig.2; State machines can be optimized that provide quick definable results in the physical system (para. 28); The state machine models control algorithms by changing the appropriate state variables (inputs) which can provide priority of actions, such as removing a source has a priority over adding a source, which has priority over restoring a load over shedding a load, etc. (para 30). Each of these priority actions are based on adjusting the status states (enable or disable) of the components of the microgrid (para. 28), which would further teach that an input that determines a (first) priority will also determine or output another (second) priority.
PNG
media_image1.png
797
1149
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the above prior arts taught by Blevins for the priority function and to include into the priority function taught by Marchegiani et al. This would have been obvious because both Blevins and Marchegiani et al. use state machine and microgrid control system, and by adding the algorithm implemented by Blevins in to the priority function taught by Marchegiani et. al. would provide optimal control routines for the microgrid (Blevins - para. 20).
As per claim 3, Marchegiani et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more inputs received by the first priority function include the microgrid-side voltage measurement and the microgrid-side frequency measurement. (Fig. 3. The priority level 1, group 1 measures power flows and electric quantities of the system. According to Fig. 1, PCS is collecting all the power from different sources from number 1 through 6. PCS is using voltage and frequency function, para 116)
Although Marchegiani et al. teach all the limitation in claim 3, they do not satisfy the priority function feature. Please also see analysis for claim 1 above including Blevins.
As per claim 4, Marchegiani et al. teach the method of claim 3, wherein the first priority function output and the second priority function output are each one of a voltage or frequency ride-through selection, an unplanned islanding signal, action dependent on a distribution system operator command, and an action dependent on a user preference (Fig 3, using a DROOP algorithm the MC microgrid controller is being connected to the microgrid and MC implements Frequency (FPF) and voltage (FQV) functions, para 116. The DROOP algorithm configures islanded mode for AC/DC interface converter, para 141. Fig. 2, the monitoring system MON and state machine MAS exchange commands and activate and deactivate the control function FC, para 86 - para 90. In order to preserve the stability of the system, active and reactive power were generated to adjust the frequency and voltage, para 5.). Please also refer to the analysis of claim 1 above including Blevins.
As per claim 5, Marchegiani et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more inputs received by the second priority function include one or more of a maintenance status, an anticipated outage, a utility grid health indicator, and a distribution system operator setpoint. (Group 2- balancing function includes SRM spinning reserve management function. Through SRM, microgrid controller MC constantly controls the instant current flow, para 117). Please also refer to the analysis of claim 1 above including Blevins.
As per claim 6, Marchegiani et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein using the state machine to determine the output based on the plurality of inputs further comprises determining the output based on a third priority function,
wherein the third priority function receives one or more of the plurality of inputs and the second priority function output to determine a third priority function output (In Group 3, priority function, the microgrid uses peak shaving function or filtering power for power management using the aeolian sources, Fig. 3, para 118, 120).
Marchegiani et al. teach that the third priority function received power from aeolian sources as input and implements peak shaving functions. However, Marchegiani et. al. do not teach that these sources are coming from the second priority function output.
However, Blevins in the same field of endeavor teaches, that the third priority function receives one or more of the plurality of inputs and the second priority function output to determine a third priority function output.
wherein the third priority function receives one or more of the plurality of inputs and the second priority function output to determine a third priority function output (Fig.2 and para 30; state machine 200 uses add a source function in Fig.2 receiving input from 210 and giving output to 210; that output is available for restore a load function as input).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the above prior arts taught by Blevins for the priority function and to include into the priority function taught by Marchegiani et al. This would have been obvious because both Blevins and Marchegiani et al. use state machine and microgrid control system, and, by adding the algorithm implemented by Blevins in to the priority function taught by Marchegiani et al. would improve the stability of the microgrid.
As per claim 7, Marchegiani et al. teach the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more inputs received by the third priority function include one or more of a user preference and an error handling signal. (In a microgrid system if a fault occurs, only the inverter in Grid forming mode will contribute to the short circuit current until a protection device intervenes. para 177).
Please also refer to the analysis of claim 1 above including Blevins.
As per claim 8, Marchegiani et al. teach The method of claim 6, wherein the third priority function output is one of a voltage or frequency ride-through selection (Fig 3, para 116, using a DROOP algorithm the MC microgrid controller is being connected to the microgrid and MC implements Frequency (FPF) and voltage (FQV) functions), an unplanned islanding signal (The DROOP algorithm configures islanded mode for AC/DC interface converter, para 141), a regulation curve selection (Droop curve-regulation curve selection, Fig. 5, para 156), an active and reactive power setpoint disabling signal, and a load or source management signal for managing devices of the microgrid.
Marchegiani et al. teach all the limitations in claim 8 further narrowing down to the limitations in claim 6.
Please also refer to the analysis of claim 6 above including Blevins.
As per claim 9, Marchegiani et al. teach
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
measuring microgrid-side operational parameters;
updating the plurality of inputs based on the measured microgrid-side operational parameters; and
iteratively repeating the steps of the method such that the state machine receives iteratively updated inputs based on the measured microgrid-side operational parameters (PCS adjusts frequency as a function of difference between current frequency value with reference, indicate multiple/iterative current frequency measurement and adjustment. Same applies to voltage adjustment. para 118),
wherein the operational parameters include a voltage and frequency of the microgrid (Instantaneously maintains grid power balance and adjust frequency and voltage, para 8).
As per claim 10, Marchegiani et al. teach The method of claim 9, wherein the operational parameters further include one or more of an active power measured at the point of common coupling, a reactive power measured at the point of common coupling (using DROOP algorithm power management by FTF and FQV function, para 116,118), a battery state of charge (using solar photovoltaic, aeoline, thermal, batteries to as a power source, para 61), and microgrid loading information( Random programmable accumulation system sources can be coupled via suitable AC bus or DC bus through suitable AC/DC or DC/AC bus conversion system, para 62).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchegiani et al. (US 20190341781 A1.) in view of Blevins (US 20130282194 A1.), and in further view of Sanders et al. (US 9960637 B2.).
As per claim 11, Marchegiani et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the control signal is configured to operate the microgrid in compliance with standards set forth in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1547 or Comitato Elettrotecnico Italiano (CEI) 0-16.
Marchegiani et al. teach a microgrid control system configured with control signal. However, they do not mention that the control signal is configured to operate the microgrid in compliance with the standards set forth in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1547 or Comitato Elettrotecnico Italiano (CEI) 0-16.
However, Sanders et al. in the same field of endeavor teach a method of monitoring power distribution in offset demand in microgrid control system in compliance with standards set forth in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1547 or Comitato Elettrotecnico Italiano (CEI) 0-16. (column 47, lines 49-55, column 104, lines 56-62).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the above prior arts taught by Sanders. et. al. for the control signal configured to operate a microgrid system is configured to operate the microgrid in compliance with standards set forth in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1547 or Comitato Elettrotecnico Italiano (CEI) 0-16 in to the system taught by Blevins and Marchegiani et. al.
This would have been obvious because Sanders et. al., Blevins and Marchegiani et. al. all use state machine and microgrid control system, and by setting the Standard of the invention it would be compatible with the most upgraded standard.
As per claim 12, Marchegiani et al teach the method of claim 11, wherein the control signal is configured to operate the microgrid with a ride-through voltage or ride-through frequency in compliance with IEEE 1547 or CEI 0-16.
Marchegiani et al. teach a microgrid control system generating control signal with a ride through voltage and frequency. However, Marchegiani et.al do not specify that the frequency and voltage function are compliance with IEEE 1547 or CEI 0-16.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sanders. et al. teach a method of monitoring energy distribution via offset demand into microgrid system measuring voltage and frequency in compliance with IEEE 1547 or CEI 0-16. (Meet the Standard IEEE 1547, (column 104, lines 56-62, frequency regulation or up/down ramping are translated into precise charge and dispatch commands by the site gateway, orchestrated voltage optimization on a given circuit or feeder, column 13, lines 30-40, Sanders et al.)
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the above prior arts taught by Sanders. et. al. for the voltage and frequency ride-through to operate a microgrid system in compliance with standards set forth in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1547 or Comitato Elettrotecnico Italiano (CEI) 0-16 in to the system taught by Blevins and Marchegiani et. al.
This would have been obvious because Sanders et. al., Blevins and Marchegiani et al. all of them use state machine and microgrid control system, and by setting the Standard of the invention it would be compatible with the most upgraded standard.
As per claim 13, Marchegiani et al. teach the method of claim 11, wherein the control signal is configured to island the microgrid if the plurality of inputs include abnormal voltage and frequency signals from the microgrid. (Microgrid control system use frequency (FPF) and voltage (FQV) functions to primarily adjust frequency and voltage deviation from their reference value, para 118. In case of a weak network or faulty system connection, microgrid switches to island mode to maintain normal load of voltage, para 172)
Please refer to the analysis of claim 11 above.
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 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 Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)-272-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118