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 .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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-19, 24, 25, 26, 28-31, 33, 34, 50, 59, 63, 65, 66, 73, 74, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk et al. (2020/0251909) and Cox (2018/0278439).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 18, and dependent claims 65 and 66, Falk teaches (Fig. 1) a system and method for delivering maximum available power from a variable energy source (3, 10) to load circuits (6) coupled to a microgrid (1) ([0030]), the system including:
multiple inverters circuits (9), each inverter circuit configured to:
receive input DC voltages generated by/from a generator circuit (inside 3, 10 that converts the wind/solar energy to DC) connected to the variable energy source;
generate output AC voltage levels on the microgrid (1) based upon available power levels associated with the input DC voltages from the generator circuit ([0004]); and
adjust the output AC voltage levels, based on the available power levels and independently of a reference voltage, to substantially maximize output power and deliver the output power via the microgrid to at least one of the load circuits (6), wherein each inverter circuit is configured to adjust the output voltage levels to substantially match the load circuits’ consumption with the generator circuit’s power generation ([0003], [0004], [0011], and [0032], specifically the last part of [0032] starting with “In one embodiment…”; Falk teaches operating the inverters individually to generate maximum power and adjust load consumption to “balance”/achieve stability in the system, similar to the Applicant’s specification at [0058]).
Falk fails to explicitly teach adjusting load consumption to balance power generation and power consumption comprising substantially matching an impedance of the load circuits to an impedance of the generator circuit. Cox teaches a similar system for delivering maximum available power from a source to a load to that of Falk. Cox teaches the idea of the maximum power transfer theorem that teaches that the maximum power transfer between a source and a load occurs when the load impedance matches the source impedance ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the load consumption in Falk’s invention by substantially matching an impedance of the load circuits to an impedance of the generator circuit, since Falk teaches the general function and Cox teaches an example of a known way to perform said function of maximizing power transfer between a source and a load.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Falk teaches each inverter circuit being configured to:
track the available power levels of the variable energy source (end of [0032]); and
adjust the output voltage levels based upon the tracked available power levels and thereby regulate the output power from the microgrid to the load circuits. (end of [0032])
Regarding claims 7, 17, 24, and 34, Falk teaches the load circuits (6) being any known consumers of energy (AC or DC) in an island system. ([0013], [0024]) Falk fails to explicitly teach a load circuit being an electric furnace to generate heat or an electrode boiler using the supplied power to adjust an electrode position or a water level. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that an electric furnace and/or an electrode boiler are known load circuits/power consumers in a home, building, commercial/industrial campus, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one load circuit in Falk’s invention comprising an electric furnace and/or an electrode boiler using the supplied power to adjust an electrode position or a water level, since those types of load circuits are known in the art described in Falk’s invention and Falk describes the general idea of the types of loads and these specific examples are obvious.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 25, and 26, Falk teaches the variable energy source including a solar panel (10) and a wind turbine (not shown) configured to generate a time-varying DC voltage based on illumination of the solar panel and a rate of rotation of rotor blades of the wind turbine. ([0022], [0030]; The DC output voltage of the renewables is time-varying based on weather conditions.)
Regarding claims 11, 28, and 50, Falk teaches a controller (11) configured to generate a control signal representing the impedance of the load circuit and to provide the control signal to the multiple inverter circuits ([0004], [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, 13, 29, and 30, Falk teaches each inverter circuit being configured to adjust the output voltage levels based on control signals from the controller based on a number of loads connected by the load circuits (based on the total consumption of the loads, if maximums are reached, and to maintain balance; [0003], [0004]).
Regarding claims 14 and 31, Falk teaches the idea of the load circuit (6) comprising a plurality of loads ([0013], [0024]), and a load controller (11) configured to decrease total power consumption when the output voltage levels fall below a nominal voltage level, or increase the total power consumption when the output voltage levels are above a first threshold ([0011], end of [0032]). Falk fails to explicitly teach the idea of disconnecting some loads when the output voltage levels fall below a nominal voltage level or connect other loads when the output voltage levels are above a first threshold, however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the relevant art to connect/disconnect loads in a load circuit to increase/decrease the total power consumption of the load circuit, respectively. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase/decrease the total power consumption of load circuits by connecting/disconnecting loads, respectively, since Falk teaches the general idea of how a system functions (i.e. increasing/decreasing power consumption) and there are obvious known methods in the art (i.e. connecting/disconnecting loads) to perform the function in Falk’s invention.
Regarding claims 16, 33, and 63, Falk teaches each inverter circuit being configured to adjust the output voltage level based upon the tracked available power level to regulate output power from the power grid to the load circuit by maximizing the output power from the power grid to the load circuit, and to maintain the output power within a threshold range ([0016], end of [0032]).
Regarding claim 59, Falk teaches at least some of the inverter circuits (9s) being coupled in parallel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 73, 74, and 76, Falk teaches the idea of generating output voltages with various setpoints (Ûo; [0016]) that can be increased or decreased (Fig. 2; S6-S8). Falk fails to explicitly teach the voltage setpoints between 50% and 95% of maximum operating voltage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the output voltage setpoints between 50% and 95% of maximum operating voltage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6, 23, 49, 51-58, 67, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk et al. (2020/0251909) and Cox (2018/0278439) as applied to claims 1, 14, and 18 above, and further in view of Fornage et al. (2010/0195357). Falk and Cox teach the system and method as described above.
Regarding independent claim 49, and dependent claims 6, 23, and 67, Falk and Cox fail to explicitly teach the load circuit including a heating element. Fornage teaches a similar system and method (Fig. 1) to that of Falk. Fornage teaches a load circuit including a heating element configured to heat a thermal energy storage medium by using the output voltage level ([0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a thermal energy storage medium and heating element into Falk’s invention as one of their load circuits, since Falk teaches the general idea of the types of load circuits connected and Fornage teaches a specific example of one of those types of load circuits being a thermal energy storage medium, for at least allowing another form of energy storage in the system.
Regarding claim 51, Falk teaches a load controller (11) configured to control the load circuits (6) (end of [0030]).
Regarding claim 52, Falk teaches the load controller configured to control the load circuits by controlling an impedance of the load circuits (as explained above, by regulating power consumption, [0004]).
Regarding claims 53, 56, and 57, the rejection above with regards to claim 14 teaches the idea of Falk’s loads being connected and disconnected from the microgrid. Falk fails to explicitly teach connecting/disconnecting the load circuits by controlling a thyristor. The Examiner takes Official Notice that using thyristors to connect/disconnect loads to/from a microgrid is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control thyristors to connect and disconnect the loads in Falk’s load circuit, since the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to use thyristors to connect and disconnect loads from a microgrid and Falk is silent as to how to increase or decrease power consumption of the load circuit.
Regarding claims 54 and 55, Falk teaches the load controller (11) configured to control the load circuits in response to the output voltage levels being greater than a third threshold, wherein the third threshold is at least one of a maximum operating voltage level or a minimum operating voltage level (end of [0032]; Falk teaches controlling the loads at all times based on output voltage at any level including a maximum or a minimum)..
Regarding claim 58, Falk teaches the multiple inverter circuits being operated individually at their own maximum operating voltage (Pmax,a, Pmax,b) that are different from one another based on a plurality of factors, including temperature ([0017], end of [0032]).
Regarding claim 75, Falk teaches this limitation as described above with regards to claim 73.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the “independently of a reference voltage” language, the Examiner argues, again, that the term “a reference voltage” is a broad term and can be interpreted in various ways, and as explained before the Examiner feels that Falk’s starting voltage command value is not a reference voltage. The Examiner could even argue that the Applicant’s invention uses a reference voltage when adjusting their output voltage levels based on the teachings in their specification’s paragraph [58], which teaches “keeping voltage levels…within a defined operating region” where the upper and lower limits of their “region” could be considered reference voltages. Also, in the same paragraph it references “independently operate…within preset ranges”, wherein those ranges could be considered “reference voltages”. So, arguably, giving the term “reference voltage” its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner could state that the Applicant’s invention doesn’t even adjust their output voltage levels “independently of a reference voltage”.
Another thing that could be argued regarding the Examiner’s prior art references is that the alleged “reference voltage” in the Falk reference isn’t being used to adjust the output voltage levels, since adjusting the output voltage levels (as pointed out in the Applicant’s REMARKS) in Falk’s invention are based on frequency measurements/changes. The alleged “reference voltage” in Falk’s invention is used to initially generate an output voltage level of an inverter circuit, not to adjust it.
Regarding the “substantially match an impedance of the load circuits to an impedance of the generator circuit” language, the main reference (Falk) teaches the idea of the inverter circuits maximizing their output power and concurrently adjusting the consumption of the loads to maximize power transfer between the source and loads in Falk’s invention. Falk fails to explicitly teach how the loads adjust their power consumption. The secondary reference (Cox) teaches the idea of maximizing power transfer by matching the load impedance with the source impedance, and it is known in the art to adjust the consumption of a load by adjusting the load’s impedance. Therefore, the Examiner believes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Falk’s invention adjusting the load’s impedance to adjust the load’s consumption, and doing so to substantially match an impedance of the load circuits to an impedance of the source circuit, since that is a known way to maximize power transfer between a source and a load, as desired by both the Falk and Cox references.
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 DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. 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).
DMP
2/2/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836