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 . In the amendment of 06/18/2026 claims 1-20 were amended and claims 21-22 were added as new claims. Therefore, Claims 1-22 are pending in this Application.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
The amendments to the drawings and specification overcome the objections to the drawings/specifications. Therefore, the amendments and drawings are acceptable and entered since they do not introduce new matter.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12, with respect to rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn.
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) 1-3, 5, 9, 11-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al (US 20240339841) in view of Mollik et al (The Advancement of Solid-State Transformer Technology and Its Operation and Control with Power Grids: A Review, cited in the IDS) and Casey et al (US 20250209234).
As per claim 1, Campbell teaches a system for controlling an electric infrastructure (see Fig. 1A-B and Fig. 2 a system for controlling an electrical network/infrastructure; also, see [0009] “The SSPS may include a first control system communicatively coupled to the plurality of SUPERs, where the first control system may be associated with one of a node or a hub”), comprising:
one or more interfaces coupled to one or more stations (see Fig. 1B one or more node/stations 120 or Super/station 140, each node/station 120 Or SUPER/station has an interface 122 for communication; also, see Fig. 6 each controller has an interface and see [0195] “The SSPS controller 112, the node controller 122, and the hub controller 132 may all be developed considering a base set of features. These features or components may include data capture in a historian, and data evaluation using various levels of analytics (which could include artificial intelligence), communication interfaces, forecasting, and optimization. A depiction of a controller architecture as utilized in this work is shown in the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 6, and is designated 200. A controller 230 of the controller architecture 200 may include first and second communication interfaces 232, 234 operable to respectively communicate to a higher level controller 210 or a lower level controller 220…”), each station comprising one or more (in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), A solid-state transformer (SST) is an advanced power electronic converter that replaces traditional iron-core transformers with power semiconductors (SiC/GaN), high-frequency transformers, and control circuits; see Fig. 8A-B each node or SUPER/station seem to suggest an SST), the one or more stations being operable to receive first electric energy via a bus from a power supply (see [0026] “the first one of the SUPERs may be configured to control the characteristic of power received from the first feeder”), each station operable to transmit second electric energy to one or more entities supported by the station (see Fig. 1B [0009] “Each SUPER may include one or more intelligent power stages (IPSs) and may be configured to be operated according to one of a plurality of converter classes, where the plurality of converter classes include a DC load interface (DCLI), an AC load interface (ACLI), a DC source interface (DCSI), an AC source interface (ACSI), or a grid interface (GI)”; also, see Fig. 1B entities/loads 150; also, see 0159] “…The SSPS may incorporate and facilitate management of power distribution for assets 150, such as distributed generation (DG) and energy storage (ES), electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and data centers…”), each station further operable to transmit third electric energy back towards the bus from the one or more entities supported by the station (see Fig. 1B each node/station has entities/source assets SUPER 140 and 150 that provide power, see [0267]; see [0159], [0166] “…The node controller 122 may coordinate the SUPERs 140 to inject net real and reactive power to the point of common coupling (PCC)…”; also, see [0176], [0187]); and
a controller system comprising the one or more interfaces and a controller (see Fig. 1A-B, 2 and 6 the controller system comprises the controller 112 and interfaces within node controllers 122; see Fig. 1B one or more node/stations 120 or Super/station 140, each node/station 120 Or SUPER/station has an interface/controller 122 for communication; also, see Fig. 6 each controller has an interface and see [0195] ), the controller comprising:
one or more hardware processors (see [0178-0180] “…The controller 300 may include a processor 310 operable to analyze information obtained from the database 350 and determine objectives and constraints with respect to the components of the SPS 110…”; also, see [0245] “…SUPER 140 with a computational platform or node (the agent) interfacing with an embedded platform, such as a digital signal processor (or field programmable gate array)…”); and memory storing computer instructions, the computer instructions when executed by the one or more hardware processors configured to perform (see [0162], [0178-0180]):
detecting an existence of a fault within the electric infrastructure, the fault indicating an outage or loss in performance in at least a portion of the electric infrastructure (see [0152] “For instance, with respect to voltage and frequency regulation, the SSPS may provide active and reactive support for voltage and frequency stabilization. The SSPS may enhance the power quality and prevent flicker. The SSPS may be configured to provide such support via control over apparent and reactive power (PQ), Volt-var control, or power factor control, or a combination thereof for power quality enhancement. The SSPS may provide control for correction of voltage deviations associated with flicker”; also, see [0153] “…phase imbalance…”; see [0157]…active filtering or power factor correction with respect to harmonics…”; also, see [0171] “…By coordinating multiple downstream SUPERs 140, the nodes 120 and hubs 130 can facilitate realization of various grid functions, including voltage regulation, frequency regulation, phase balancing, and harmonic filtering simultaneously without compromising on the load requirements at the consumer end”; [0183] “…Operational capabilities of an SSPS 110, node 120, or hub 130, or a component thereof, may include the ability to detect and transition electrical networks to islanded networks due to electric grid challenges, provide harmonic attenuation and power quality improvement, coordinate load sharing and formation, and support multiple levels of system protection to name a few…”; see [0200] “…The control system may actively monitor the PCC or POC for voltage, frequency deviations, and other abnormalities. Monitoring may be achieved at any level in the hierarchical system, including at the hub level, node level, or SUPER level. Based on information obtained at one or more of these levels, control systems or controllers of the system 100 may act to address issues, such as frequency deviations or other abnormalities. Through coordinated control, the system 100 may regulate voltage and frequency deviations along the feeder in the illustrated embodiment in a timeframe less than 10 minutes. Host functions provided in controllers at different system layers may demand response locally to provide more flexibility and even faster response times…”; also, see [0261] “… SSPS 110 may include several fundamental building blocks, such as SUPERs 140 and IPSs 146. These fundamental building blocks may allow the distribution/segregation of controls, protection, and intelligence at various levels of the hierarchy, enabling fast decision-making capability and response to transient or abnormal conditions….”; also, see [0271] “… In the case of abnormal conditions, the functionality selector of the SSPS controller 112 may dictate a mode of operation…[0272] The optimizer may enable price negotiation of SSPS or customers with respect to the DMS 162 for energy and ancillary surfaces. The architecture 1000 may change traditional paths of customers into active customers, which could consume or generate energy as well as provide ancillary services, such as voltage or frequency regulation, or protection, phase balancing, or power quality improvements, or a combination thereof.);
in response to detecting an existence of a fault, determining a fault type (see Fig. 31 the SSPS system detected different type of faults; [0157] “…the SSPS may support active filtering or power factor correction with respect to harmonics caused by non-linear loads. Active filtering may be provided with respect to dominant harmonics (3rd, 5th, 7th . . . 11th),..”; also, see [0200] “The control system may actively monitor the PCC or POC for voltage, frequency deviations, and other abnormalities. Monitoring may be achieved at any level in the hierarchical system, including at the hub level, node level, or SUPER level. Based on information obtained at one or more of these levels, control systems or controllers of the system 100 may act to address issues, such as frequency deviations or other abnormalities. Through coordinated control, the system 100 may regulate voltage and frequency deviations along the feeder in the illustrated embodiment in a timeframe less than 10 minutes. Host functions provided in controllers at different system layers may demand response locally to provide more flexibility and even faster response times; also, see [0203]; also, see [0206] “…The IPS 146 may disable the PWMs to the semiconductor switches in the event of over voltage (OV), over current (OC) or over temperature (OT) with respect to the power stage. The IPS 146 may be equipped with sensors for fast protection”, thus, the system detects different type of faults such as harmonics); and
based on the fault type, selecting a particular entity of the one or more
entities supported by a particular station of the one or more stations based on a
condition (these limitations have been interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure. For instance, the original disclosure teaches the selection of a particular station based on fault and location closest to the fault, see original disclosure 0074, thus, selecting a stations selects the entities/sources or loads within it. See Campbell [0154] “the SSPS may support active filtering or power factor correction with respect to harmonics caused by non-linear loads. Active filtering may be provided with respect to dominant harmonics (3rd, 5th, 7th . . . 11th), and a multi-port configuration may help to eliminate the need for diode-based power conversion stages or redundant power conversion stages. The SSPS in this configuration may help to enable loads with active front ends”; also, see [0166] “…The node controller 122 may coordinate the SUPERs 140 to inject net real and reactive power to the point of common coupling (PCC) and to perform other local supporting functions within the node 120 (such as improved resiliency control options offered by droop type controls.) This type of system can be represented in the form of a microgrid or nano-grid, such as the one depicted in the template of FIG. 4.”; see [0176] “The GI 125 provided is a grid tied converter operable for active harmonic filtering or reactive power compensation, or both. The GI 125 configuration may vary depending on the application and may provide harmonic filtering or reactive power injection”; see Fig. 31 the SSPS system detected different type of faults; also, see [0172], [0183] “operational capabilities of an SSPS 110, node 120, or hub 130, or a component thereof, may include the ability to detect and transition electrical networks to islanded networks due to electric grid challenges, provide harmonic attenuation and power quality improvement, coordinate load sharing and formation, and support multiple levels of system protection to name a few. These are operating capabilities of the SSPS 110, node 120, or hub 130 that are provided in both normal and abnormal operating conditions…”, see [0187], [0188], [0203], also, see Fig. 29 and [0253] “The information received via the interface may be analyzed or compared against one or more parameters, such as for frequency, voltage, or harmonics…. Information received via the interface may also include mode or set points to dispatch to the SUPER 140 or component thereof. This information may also form a basis for determining a mode or set points for the converter. Step 1144….”; also, see Fig. 31 and [0271] “Each converter may be assigned a P, and Q, (shown in FIG. 26) over a shorter period of time, such as three minutes. In the case of abnormal conditions, the functionality selector of the SSPS controller 112 may dictate a mode of operation”);
adjusting an operation of the particular entity and the particular station to compensate for the fault, the adjusting the operation including coordinating a transmission of the third electric energy towards the bus from the particular entity (see [0166] “…The node controller 122 may coordinate the SUPERs 140 to inject net real and reactive power to the point of common coupling (PCC) and to perform other local supporting functions within the node 120 (such as improved resiliency control options offered by droop type controls.) This type of system can be represented in the form of a microgrid or nano-grid, such as the one depicted in the template of FIG. 4.”; see [0176] “The GI 125 provided is a grid tied converter operable for active harmonic filtering or reactive power compensation, or both. The GI 125 configuration may vary depending on the application and may provide harmonic filtering or reactive power injection”; see Fig. 31 the SSPS system detected different type of faults; [0157] “…the SSPS may support active filtering or power factor correction with respect to harmonics caused by non-linear loads. Active filtering may be provided with respect to dominant harmonics (3rd, 5th, 7th . . . 11th),..”; also, see [0200] “The control system may actively monitor the PCC or POC for voltage, frequency deviations, and other abnormalities. Monitoring may be achieved at any level in the hierarchical system, including at the hub level, node level, or SUPER level. Based on information obtained at one or more of these levels, control systems or controllers of the system 100 may act to address issues, such as frequency deviations or other abnormalities. Through coordinated control, the system 100 may regulate voltage and frequency deviations along the feeder in the illustrated embodiment in a timeframe less than 10 minutes. Host functions provided in controllers at different system layers may demand response locally to provide more flexibility and even faster response times; also, see [0151-0157], [0200]; also, see [0187], [0188], [0203], also, see Fig. 29 and [0253] “The information received via the interface may be analyzed or compared against one or more parameters, such as for frequency, voltage, or harmonics…. Information received via the interface may also include mode or set points to dispatch to the SUPER 140 or component thereof. This information may also form a basis for determining a mode or set points for the converter. Step 1144….”; also, see Fig. 31 and [0271]);
While Campbell teaches that each SUPER/station comprises an IPS, which IPS includes a transformer and inverter/converter circuitry which suggests an SST (see Fig. 7B and 8A-B; in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), A solid-state transformer (SST) is an advanced power electronic converter that replaces traditional iron-core transformers with power semiconductors (SiC/GaN), high-frequency transformers, and control circuits; see Fig. 8A-B each node or SUPER/station seem to suggest an SST), Campbell does not explicitly each station comprising one or more solid state transformers (SSTs), selecting a particular entity of the one or more entities supported by a particular station of the one or more stations based on a condition involving a location of the particular entity relative to the fault.
However, Mollik teaches a system comprising one or more stations (see Fig. 1), each station comprising one or more solid state transformers (SSTs) (see Fig. 1 SST; also, see page 2 “…electrical users…”; also, see Fig. 3 and page 2 last par. “…Each SST, which functions as an energy router, can control active and reactive power flow as well as fault currents on both the low- and high-voltage sides….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell’s invention to include each station comprising one or more solid state transformers (SSTs) as taught by Mollik in order to control the SST’s to compensate reactive power and reduce voltage drops and other several types of identified faults and because SST are more compact than conventional transformers (see page 2 par. 1 “Solid-state transformers (SSTs) can be employed to address these concerns in smart grids, which can control and enhance the quality of electricity by compensating reactive power and reducing voltage drops. Using this technology, power supply can be adjusted without using any added compensator. SSTs are more compact, making it simpler to match varied voltage levels of direct and alternating currents…”; also, see Fig. 3 and page 2 last par. the system is used for harmonics compensation, voltage drop, “The characteristics of SSTs include immediate voltage control, voltage sag compensation, fault isolation, power factor correction, harmonic isolation,
and a direct current output…”).
Campbell-Mollik does not explicitly teach selecting a particular entity of the one or more entities supported by a particular station of the one or more stations based on a condition involving a location of the particular entity relative to the fault.
However, Casey teaches a method and system for monitoring electrical grid service comprising selecting a particular entity of one or more entities supported by a particular station of one or more stations based on a condition involving a location of the particular entity relative to the fault (see [0005]; see [0028] assets/entities; see [0041] “… in response to the grid monitoring server 130 detecting an electric grid event, such as a loss of power. In some examples, the grid monitoring server 130 sends a request for an updated grid assets status 146 to a subset of the grid assets 150 in response to the grid monitoring server 130 detecting an electric grid event. For example, the grid monitoring server 130 can detect an electric grid event, determine a type and/or location of the event, identify a subset of grid assets that are relevant to the event based on the type and/or the location of the event, and send the request to the subset of grid assets 150 identified as relevant to the event.”; see [0042] type of events; also, see [0084] “…For example, the grid instructions 448 can cause a set of switches to reconfigure in order to island a microgrid of the electric grid 103. The grid monitor 414 can determine to island the microgrid, for example, based on determining that grid assets are available to power the microgrid. A microgrid is a local electrical grid with defined electrical boundaries, acting as a single and controllable entity. A microgrid is able to operate in grid-connected and in island mode… Microgrids can be used to improve the security of supply within the microgrid cell, and can supply emergency power, changing between island and connected mode”, the selected assets belong to the microgrids/stations; also, see [0082] “…the grid monitor 414 selects one or more grid assets from the grid asset database 430 to perform grid services based on the operating parameters for the grid assets, the recorded status information for the grid assets, the location of each of the grid assets relative to the electric grid 103, the location of each of the grid assets relative to the electric grid event, or any combination of these features…”; also, see [0083] “… the grid monitor 414 selects a first grid asset for performing a grid service, such as by selecting the battery 122 for performing emergency energy supply services. The grid monitor 414 can select the battery 122 based on status information in the grid asset database 430 that indicates a recent charge level of 100% for the battery.”; also, see [0074] “…the grid event occurs at a particular geographical location, and the grid monitor 414 selects grid assets that are within a threshold distance to the grid event (e.g., a half mile, a mile, two miles). The designated proximity can vary based on the type of grid event. For example, for grid events that cause a demand for fast balancing, the designated proximity of grid assets that are relevant to the grid event may be a closer proximity compared to grid events that cause a demand for power storage”; also, see [0084-0085]; also, see [0144] “In some implementations, the method includes selecting the grid asset based on at least one of a group consisting of: … a location of the grid asset relative to a location of the electric grid event.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell-Mollik’s combination as taught above to include selecting a particular entity of one or more entities supported by a particular station of one or more stations based on a condition involving a location of the particular entity relative to the fault as taught by Casey in order to control the entities/assets to provide grid services that alleviate or correct the fault (see [0045]-[0050] grid services and see [0051] “in some examples, the grid asset instructions 148 can include instructions that cause the grid assets 150 to change status in order to perform a grid service…”; also, see [0052] “… an instruction that causes the battery 122 to connect to the electric grid 103 and provide power to the electric grid 103, an instruction that causes generator 124 to connect to the electric grid 103 and provide power to the electric grid 103, and an instruction that causes the air conditioner 115 to power off, as depicted in FIG. 3”; also, see [0074] “…In one example, the grid event occurs on a particular feeder of the electric grid 103, and the grid monitor 414 selects grid assets that are on the particular feeder of the electric grid experiencing the grid event. In another example, the grid event occurs at a particular geographical location, and the grid monitor 414 selects grid assets that are within a threshold distance to the grid event (e.g., a half mile, a mile, two miles). The designated proximity can vary based on the type of grid event. For example, for grid events that cause a demand for fast balancing, the designated proximity of grid assets that are relevant to the grid event may be a closer proximity compared to grid events that cause a demand for power storage”).
As per claim 2, Campbell-Mollik-Casey teaches the system of claim 1, Campbell further teaches wherein the determining of the fault type comprises detecting that the fault type includes a voltage drop (see [0152] “…The SSPS may provide control for correction of voltage deviations associated with flicker…”, flicker is voltage drop; also, see [0154] “…This operability with respect to the SSPS may enhance safety for maintenance and limit energy delivered to a fault. Additional operability with respect to islanding includes providing reliable, low voltage ride through and fault ride through capabilities for inverter-based generation, black start capability, and ease of islanding resynchronization”; also, see [0171] “…voltage regulation…”; also, see [0200] and [0203] “the SUPER controller 142 may be programmed with thresholds to respond to over voltage (OV), under voltage (UV), over frequency (OF), under frequency (UF)”); and wherein the coordinating of the transmission of the third electric energy includes coordinating the particular entity supported by the particular station to inject a portion of reactive power towards the bus to compensate for the voltage drop (see [0152] “For instance, with respect to voltage and frequency regulation, the SSPS may provide active and reactive support for voltage and frequency stabilization. The SSPS may enhance the power quality and prevent flicker. The SSPS may be configured to provide such support via control over apparent and reactive power (PQ), Volt-var control, or power factor control, or a combination thereof for power quality enhancement. The SSPS may provide control for correction of voltage deviations associated with flicker”; also, see [0153] “…phase imbalance…”; see [0157]…active filtering or power facto correction with respect to harmonics…”; also, see [0171] “…By coordinating multiple downstream SUPERs 140, the nodes 120 and hubs 130 can facilitate realization of various grid functions, including voltage regulation, frequency regulation, phase balancing, and harmonic filtering simultaneously without compromising on the load requirements at the consumer end”; also, see [0166] “…inject net real and reactive power…”). Mollik also teaches its system detecting a fault type such as voltage drop (see page 2 par. 1 “…voltage drop…” and last par. “…The characteristics of SSTs include immediate voltage control, voltage sag compensation,…”), and coordinating of the transmission of the third electric energy includes coordinating the particular entity supported by the particular station to inject a portion of reactive power towards the bus to compensate for the voltage drop (see page 2 par. 1 “Solid-state transformers (SSTs) can be employed to address these concerns in smart grids, which can control and enhance the quality of electricity by compensating reactive power and reducing voltage drops. Using this technology, power supply can be adjusted without using any added compensator…” and page 2 last par. “”…Each SST, which functions as an energy router, can control active and reactive power flow as well as fault currents on both the low- and high-voltage sides. In addition, it has enormous control bandwidth capability that enables remote resources to control and respond to changes in the system quickly…”; also, see Fig. 3 wherein power is injected). Casey also teaches the limitations of claim 2 (see 0049 voltage drop; and see [0045-0050]m [0051-0052] [0074], and see claim 1 above, Case teaches the selection and control of particular entities to compensate for grid events such as voltage drops).
As per claim 3, Campbell-Mollik-Casey teaches the system of claim 1, Campbell further teaches wherein the determining of the fault type includes detecting that the fault type includes entity supported by the particular station to transmit the third electric energy towards the bus based on stored electric energy within the particular entity supported by the particular station (see [0159] “The SSPS may incorporate and facilitate management of power distribution for assets 150, such as distributed generation (DG) and energy storage (ES), electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and data centers. As described herein in conjunction with one embodiment, the DMS may form part of a hierarchal systems to sub-divide an optimization problem into different layers, potentially enhancing reliability and resiliency for a variety of applications, including microgrids, nano grids, and even hybrid AC-DC systems”; also, see [0157], [0166], [0203], [0206]).
while a voltage drop/sag is usually detected when a generator is down, Campbell-Mollik does not explicitly teach wherein the determining of the fault type includes detecting that the fault type includes an outage.
However, Casey further teaches the method and system for monitoring electrical grid service comprising determining of the fault type includes detecting that the fault type includes an outage (see [0041] “detect an electric grid event, determine a type and/or location of the event, identify a subset of grid assets that are relevant to the event based on the type and/or the location of the event, and send the request to the subset of grid assets 150 identified as relevant to the event.”; [0042] “An electric grid event is …voltage collapse, power flow reversal, a power outage…” and see [0072]) and selecting the particular entity supported by the particular station to transmit the third electric energy towards the bus based on stored electric energy within the particular entity supported by the particular station (see [0005]; see [0028] assets/entities; see [0041]; and see [0052] and [0083] “… the grid monitor 414 selects a first grid asset for performing a grid service, such as by selecting the battery 122 for performing emergency energy supply services. The grid monitor 414 can select the battery 122 based on status information in the grid asset database 430 that indicates a recent charge level of 100% for the battery”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell-Mollik’s combination as taught above to include determining of the fault type includes detecting that the fault type includes an outage and coordinating of the transmission of the third electric energy includes selecting the particular entity supported by the particular station to transmit the third electric energy towards the bus based on stored electric energy within the particular entity supported by the particular station as taught by Casey in order to control the entities/assets to provide grid services that alleviate or correct the fault (see [0045]-[0050] grid services and see [0051] “in some examples, the grid asset instructions 148 can include instructions that cause the grid assets 150 to change status in order to perform a grid service…”; also, see [0052] “… an instruction that causes the battery 122 to connect to the electric grid 103 and provide power to the electric grid 103, an instruction that causes generator 124 to connect to the electric grid 103 and provide power to the electric grid 103, and an instruction that causes the air conditioner 115 to power off, as depicted in FIG. 3”; also, see [0074] “…In one example, the grid event occurs on a particular feeder of the electric grid 103, and the grid monitor 414 selects grid assets that are on the particular feeder of the electric grid experiencing the grid event. In another example, the grid event occurs at a particular geographical location, and the grid monitor 414 selects grid assets that are within a threshold distance to the grid event (e.g., a half mile, a mile, two miles). The designated proximity can vary based on the type of grid event. For example, for grid events that cause a demand for fast balancing, the designated proximity of grid assets that are relevant to the grid event may be a closer proximity compared to grid events that cause a demand for power storage”).
As per claim 5, Campbell-Mollik-Casey teaches the system of claim 3, Campbell further teaches wherein the computer instructions when executed by the one or more hardware processors are further configured to perform:
switching a mode of the particular station from an energy acquiring mode to an energy supplying mode (see [0205] “…Capability to realize dynamic grid functions, Continuous such as voltage and frequency regulation. For instance, the SUPER controller 142 may dynamically choose and vary a converter mode of operation depending on system conditions Anomaly detection (Cyber-attacks, fault Continuous condition etc.)”; also, see Fig. 29 and see [0253] “…As described herein, the SUPER controller 142 may receive information via an interface from an upper level controller… Information received via the interface may also include mode or set points to dispatch to the SUPER 140 or component thereof. This information may also form a basis for determining a mode or set points for the converter. Step 1144.”; also, see [0271] “…. In the case of abnormal conditions, the functionality selector of the SSPS controller 112 may dictate a mode of operation”),
wherein the energy supplying mode converts the particular stations into one or more grid-forming inverters (in this disclosure grid forming inverter is an inverter to provides power to the grid for purposes or harmonics regulation, voltage or frequency regulation.; see [0166] “…The node controller 122 may coordinate the SUPERs 140 to inject net real and reactive power to the point of common coupling (PCC) and to perform other local supporting functions within the node 120 (such as improved resiliency control options offered by droop type controls.) This type of system can be represented in the form of a microgrid or nano-grid, such as the one depicted in the template of FIG. 4.”; see [0176] “[0176] The GI 125 provided is a grid tied converter operable for active harmonic filtering or reactive power compensation, or both. The GI 125 configuration may vary depending on the application and may provide harmonic filtering or reactive power injection”; see Fig. 31 the SSPS system detected different type of faults; [0157] “…the SSPS may support active filtering or power factor correction with respect to harmonics caused by non-linear loads. Active filtering may be provided with respect to dominant harmonics (3rd, 5th, 7th . . . 11th),..”; also, see [0200] “The control system may actively monitor the PCC or POC for voltage, frequency deviations, and other abnormalities. Monitoring may be achieved at any level in the hierarchical system, including at the hub level, node level, or SUPER level. Based on information obtained at one or more of these levels, control systems or controllers of the system 100 may act to address issues, such as frequency deviations or other abnormalities. Through coordinated control, the system 100 may regulate voltage and frequency deviations along the feeder in the illustrated embodiment in a timeframe less than 10 minutes. Host functions provided in controllers at different system layers may demand response locally to provide more flexibility and even faster response times; also, see [0151-0157], [0200];thus, when a fault is detected the system changes the SUPER/nodes to rid forming inverter devices that are able to provide power). Mollik also teaches these limitations of claim 5 (See the system is an intelligent smart grid where SSTs at a plurality of locations can either receive energy to provide to loads of each SST, or provide electricity back to the grid via energy generation, the smart grid automatically determining whether or not energy needs received or can be supplied to the grid, where each SST will act as an inverter to transform DC voltage to AC voltage for the grid; figure 1; pages 1-2; also, see page 12 last paragraph “Case I studies the system under the grid-connected mode”).
As per claim 9, Campbell-Mollik teaches the system of claim 1, Campbell further teaches wherein the determining of the fault type includes determining that the fault type includes a harmonic distortion within a waveform of the electric energy (see [0157] “the SSPS may support active filtering or power factor correction with respect to harmonics caused by non-linear loads. Active filtering may be provided with respect to dominant harmonics (3rd, 5th, 7th . . . 11th),; also, see [0171], [0184], [0187] “…Local measurements obtained by the SUPER controller 142 may indicate that harmonics and voltage challenges are beyond thresholds and are targeted for immediate control actions from the SUPER 140”; se [0253]); and
the coordinating of the transmission of the third electric energy comprises coordinating the particular station to transmit harmonic signals to counteract the harmonic distortion (see [0157] “the SSPS may support active filtering or power factor correction with respect to harmonics caused by non-linear loads. Active filtering may be provided with respect to dominant harmonics (3rd, 5th, 7th . . . 11th),…”; also, see [0171] “…By coordinating multiple downstream SUPERs 140, the nodes 120 and hubs 130 can facilitate realization of various grid functions, including voltage regulation, frequency regulation, phase balancing, and harmonic filtering simultaneously without compromising on the load requirements at the consumer end; also, see [0176], [0187] and [0270]).
As to claim 11, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
As to claim 12, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
As to claim 13, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
As to claim 15, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
As to claim 19, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al (US 20240339841) in view of Mollik et al (The Advancement of Solid-State Transformer Technology and Its Operation and Control with Power Grids: A Review, cited in the IDS) and Casey et al (US 20250209234) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jasmin (US 20190324486).
As per claim 4, Campbell-Mollik-Casey teaches the system of claim 3, Campbell seems to suggest that stations/nodes capabilities are detected and based on the capabilities are controlled for power injection (see 0184), Campbell does not explicitly teach the selecting of the particular entity supported by the particular station includes determining that the particular entity supported by the particular station has a surplus of stored energy based on an expected energy demand corresponding to the particular station.
However, Jasmin teaches a system comprising selecting particular entity supported by the particular station to provide power when a fault is detected (see Fig. 11 plurality of ESD/stations and see [0071]), wherein the selecting of the particular entity station includes determining that the particular entity supported by the particular station has a surplus of stored energy based on an expected energy demand corresponding to the particular station (see [0030] “the ESD 22 is a battery 30… Alternatively, the ESD 22 may be primarily designed to supply a dwelling with electricity and feed the electric power grid 20 only where an excess of electrical energy is available”; also, see [0071] “For example, the ESDs 1110 and 1120 may be assigned a task of providing stand-by reserve capacity for 30 minutes at a future time, while the ESDs 1130 and 1140 may remain idle. In a next step 1204 a frequency deviation occurs that is characteristic of an imbalance between the generation side of the electric power grid 20 and the load size thereof. The central office controller receives post-event information from each one of the ESDs 1110, 1120, 1130 and 1140 at step 1206 and re-assesses the tasks of each one of the ESDs 1110, 1120, 1130 and 1140 at step 1208 based on the post-event information received at step 1206. For example, after the under-frequency event, the central office controller may determine that the local response performed by the ESDs 1110 and 1120 has depleted the respective batteries to a point they cannot provide anymore the standby reserve capacity of 30 minutes, the central office controller will re-assign the stand-by reserve capacity commands, assuming the other ESDs 1130 and 1140 have an SOC sufficient to provide the desired stand-by reserve capacity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the combination of Campbell as taught above to include selecting particular entity supported by the particular station to provide power when a fault is detected, wherein the selecting of the particular entity station includes determining that the particular entity supported by the particular station has a surplus of stored energy based on an expected energy demand corresponding to the particular station as taught by Jasmin in order to provide power to the grid only when the station has excess power (see [0030] and [0071) and avoid commanding stations that are unable to provide power to the grid to compensate for the fault (see Fig. 12 and see [0072]).
As to claim 14, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al (US 20240339841) in view of Mollik et al (The Advancement of Solid-State Transformer Technology and Its Operation and Control with Power Grids: A Review, cited in the IDS) and Casey et al (US 20250209234) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gadh et al (US 20130179061, cited in the IDS) and Bennett et al (US 20210203185).
As per claim 6, Campbell-Mollik-Casey teaches the system of claim 1, Campbell-Mollik does not explicitly teach wherein the computer instructions when executed by the one or more hardware processors are further configured to perform:
receiving a request from a first entity supported by a first station for urgent electric energy, wherein the first station comprises the particular station or a different station;
determining a level of urgency or a level of priority of the request;
determining that stored energy of the one or more entities supported by the first station is insufficient to fulfill the request; and
selectively redistributing external electric energy from the one or more other entities supported by one or more other stations besides the first station to meet the request.
However, Gadh teaches a system comprising computer instruction comprising receiving a request from a first entity supported by a first station for urgent electric energy, (see [0014-0015] “…According to another aspect of the invention, a charging station may be provided for charging an electric vehicle. The charging station may, for example, also provide for receipt of by an electric vehicle, the location of the charging station, the charge capacity of the charging station, and the cost per kWh of charge at the charging station….”; also, see [0062] “a charging profile for each vehicle, and optionally for each day of the week, a user immutable charge priority (e.g. emergency response vehicle); also, see [0258] “…a unique control system algorithm to schedule electric vehicle charging and discharging in a manner that is beneficial for vehicle battery health, grid stability, and consumer demand…”; [0263]), wherein the first station comprises the particular station or a different station (see computer implemented system receives an electric vehicle charging request to charge an electric vehicle (particular entity) at an electric vehicle charging station (a first station), with a user immutable charge priority such as indicating an emergency response vehicle indicating urgency; para [0014]-[0015], [0061]-[0062]), determining a level of urgency or a level of priority of the request (see [0062] “…the electric vehicle is assigned a user immutable charge priority indicating a level of priority of the request; para [0062]…”; also, see [0096] “… charging limits and costs of the charging station 306…”, 0356 capacity of charging station”; also, see [0263] “…The user behavior profile for a particular electric vehicle may also contain a number of miles that need to be driven after work, allowing those who travel longer distances to be prioritized over those who travel shorter distances.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell’s combination as taught above to include computer instruction comprising receiving a request from a first entity supported by a first station for urgent electric energy, wherein the first station comprises the particular station or a different station, determining a level of urgency or a level of priority of the request as taught by Gadh in order to provide charging power to loads with a priority (see [0062] “User profile information may include the different vehicles the user operates, a charging profile for each vehicle, and optionally for each day of the week, a user immutable charge priority (e.g. emergency response vehicle), a …”; also, see [0263] “…The user behavior profile for a particular electric vehicle may also contain a number of miles that need to be driven after work, allowing those who travel longer distances to be prioritized over those who travel shorter distances”).
While Gadh teaches entities/loads with priority are considered when power is provided at energy stations and wherein the capacity of each station is determined before charging, Campbell-Mollik-Casey-Gadh does not explicitly teach determining that stored energy of the one or more entities supported by the first station is insufficient to fulfill the request and selectively redistributing external electric energy from the one or more other entities supported by one or more other stations besides the first station to meet the request.
Bennett teaches a system for controlling energy flow comprising a first station providing power to an entity with a priority (see Fig. 1 community node has higher priority than node 110, wherein the priority is because the node comprises a load such as hospital, see [0081] “…this association can reflect an assumption that greater harm will arise from a power shortfall in the higher priority node (e.g., the higher priority node can be a microgrid for a hospital). In some embodiments, smart interface controller 121 can be configured to transfer power contrary to requests from lower priority nodes subject to first conditions and transfer power contrary to request from higher priority nodes subject to second conditions”; also, se Fig. 11 station/microgrid providing power to entities 1109), determining that stored energy of the one or more entities supported by the first station is insufficient to fulfill the request (see Fig. 11 example of a node with batteries and which provide power to loads 1109 with priority, see [0237] “…In some embodiments, loads with a third priority greater than the second priority may not be stopped or rescheduled”; also, see [0201] “… In various embodiments, interface controller 1111 can be configured to determine the magnitude and direction of power transfer based on requests received from primary controller 1101 (or backup controller 1103) and from another device or system (e.g., power source 1113). For example, interface controller 1111 can receive a request from primary controller 1101 to provide a first amount of power (e.g., when storage component(s) 1105 are at capacity) and a request from power source 1113 to provide a second power…”), and selectively redistributing external electric energy from the one or more other entities supported by one or more other stations besides the first station to meet the request (see 0081 transfer power from lower priority nodes to higher priority nodes; also, see Fig. 2-3 and see [0090] “In step 210, a smart interface controller can receive a power transfer request from a node (e.g., community node 110 or local node 123) connected to the smart interface controller”; thus, node 123 with high priority request power; also, see [0091-0092] power transfer requests from the node/station and the system selects redistributing external electric energy from one or more other stations besides the first station to meet the request; also, see [0099] “…in some embodiments, method 300 can further determine the power transfer value based on parameters (e.g., node priority…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell’s combination as taught above to include a first station providing power to an entity with a priority, determining that stored energy of the one or more entities supported by the first station is insufficient to fulfill the request and selectively redistributing external electric energy from the one or more other entities supported by one or more other stations besides the first station to meet the request as taught by Bennett in order to provide power to entities that cannot stopped or reschedule when power is insufficient (see [0237]).
As per claim 7, Campbell-Mollik-Gadh-Bennett teaches the system of claim 6, Gadh further teaches wherein the determining the level of urgency or the level of priority is based on a type of the first entity (see the priority may be based on the electric vehicle being an emergency response vehicle, see [0062] “a user immutable charge priority (e.g. emergency response vehicle)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell’s combination as taught above to include wherein the determining the level of urgency or the level of priority is based on a type of the first entity as taught by Gadh in order to provide charging power to loads with a priority (see [0062] “User profile information may include the different vehicles the user operates, a charging profile for each vehicle, and optionally for each day of the week, a user immutable charge priority (e.g. emergency response vehicle), a …”; also, see [0263] “…The user behavior profile for a particular electric vehicle may also contain a number of miles that need to be driven after work, allowing those who travel longer distances to be prioritized over those who travel shorter distances”) or as taught by Bennett to provide power to entities that cannot stopped or reschedule when power is insufficient (see [0237]).
As to claim 16, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
As to claim 17, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al (US 20240339841) in view of Mollik et al (The advancement of Solid-State Transformer Technology and Its Operation and Control with Power Grids: A Review, cited in the IDS), Casey et al (US 20250209234), Gadh et al (US 20130179061, cited in the IDS) and Bennett et al (US 20210203185) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jasmin (US 20190324486).
As per claim 8, Campbell-Mollik-Casey-Gadh-Bennett teaches the system of claim 6, Campbell and Gadh teaches a function of aggregation of energy among all of the stations, wherein energy aggregation involve the grouping of DERS/stations into single group which is controlled as a group to provide power stability to the grid (in other words, if any of the stations is not able to produce the necessary energy for its local load/entity, adjacent stations/DERS are assigned a power level to provide the needed power load, see Gadh [0065-0068], [0340]), however, Campbell’s combination does not explicitly teach wherein the selectively redistributing the external electric energy from the one or more other stations to the first station comprises redistributing the external electric energy in proportion to available energy levels at the respective other stations.
However, Jasmin teaches a system comprising selecting one or more stations to provide power (see Fig. 11 plurality of ESD/stations and see [0071]), determining that the stored energy in a first station is insufficient to fulfill a request for energy (see [0071] “…For example, after the under-frequency event, the central office controller may determine that the local response performed by the ESDs 1110 and 1120 has depleted the respective batteries to a point they cannot provide anymore the standby reserve capacity of 30 minutes, the central office controller will re-assign the stand-by reserve capacity commands, assuming the other ESDs 1130 and 1140 have an SOC sufficient to provide the desired stand-by reserve capacity. In this specific example, the central office controller will send a remote command to the ESDs to cancel the stand-by reserve capacity earlier command and send a remote command to the ESDs to request availability in order to provide the reserve capacity….”; also, see [0072]), wherein the selectively redistributing the external electric energy from the one or more other stations to the first station comprises redistributing the external electric energy in proportion to available energy levels at the respective other stations (see [0071] “…In this specific example, the central office controller will send a remote command to the ESDs to cancel the stand-by reserve capacity earlier command and send a remote command to the ESDs to request availability in order to provide the reserve capacity…”, thus, redistributing the external electric energy in proportion to available energy levels at the respective other stations; also, see [0072] “…In the event, the residual energy capacity of a particular ESD is not sufficient to comply with the remote command, the central office controller will re-task the remote commands, to the extent another ESD has more energy available. The re-tasking operation may involve, for instance, a task switch where a command that carries a lower energy requirement is directed to the ESD that has the lower SOC, assuming of course it is still sufficient to comply with the command, and the command that has a high energy requirement is directed to the ESD that has a comparatively high SOC”; also, see [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell’s combination as taught above to include selecting one or more stations to provide power, determining that the stored energy in a first station is insufficient to fulfill a request for energy, wherein the selectively redistributing the external electric energy from the one or more other stations to the first station comprises redistributing the external electric energy in proportion to available energy levels at the respective other stations as taught by Jasmin in order to provide power from stations that have the surplus or capability to satisfy a request or need of an important/priority load (see [0071-0072]).
As to claim 18, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al (US 20240339841) in view of Mollik et al (The Advancement of Solid-State Transformer Technology and Its Operation and Control with Power Grids: A Review, cited in the IDS) and Casey et al (US 20250209234) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cherian et al (US 20110106321).
As per claim 10, Campbell-Mollik-Casey teaches the system of claim 1, While Campbell teaches detecting an imbalance within the electric infrastructure (see [00171] “…phase balance…”), Campbell-Mollik does not explicitly teach wherein the computer instructions when executed by the one or more hardware processors are further configured to perform: detecting an imbalance within the electric infrastructure, the imbalance including an uneven distribution of available electric energy across different stations; and in response to detecting the imbalance, selectively redistributing the available electric energy among at least a subset of the different stations.
Cherian teaches a computer implemented system comprising computer instructions when executed by the one or more hardware processors are further configured to perform: detecting an imbalance within the electric infrastructure, the imbalance including an uneven distribution of available electric energy across different stations (see Fig. 1 stations 125 or stations include all of the components under each region 225; the Abstract “Power production and power consumption are monitored and analyzed by the enterprise control module which, upon determining that power consumption within a region does not match power producing capability, dynamically reallocates distributed energy resources throughout the grid keeping the system balance”; also, see [0077] “…. For example, consider a region managed and controlled by a regional control module 225 that is experiencing an increase in power demand or load…The regional control module 225 can further recognize that the power producers within the region are incapable of producing enough power to meet the demand or their ability to produce such power would exceed safety and regulatory constraints.); and in response to detecting the imbalance, selectively redistributing the available electric energy among at least a subset of the different stations (see the Abstract and see [0077-0078] “…Upon recognizing that such a situation may occur the regional control module 225 issues a request for additional power through the enterprise control module 275. Applications associated with the enterprise control module 275 issue queries to the remaining regional control modules 225 regarding their ability to produce excess power. Other regional control modules 225 can respond to the inquiry indicating that it has the ability to increase power production in response to the request for power by another region.”; also, see [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell’s combination as taught above to include instructions when executed by the one or more hardware processors are further configured to perform: detecting an imbalance within the electric infrastructure, the imbalance including an uneven distribution of available electric energy across different stations; and in response to detecting the imbalance, selectively redistributing the available electric energy among at least a subset of the different stations as taught by Cherian in order to reduce the imbalance within the electrical infrastructure (see [0079]) and maintain stability and reliability of the electrical infrastructure operations (see [0025]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al (US 20240339841) in view of Mollik et al (The Advancement of Solid-State Transformer Technology and Its Operation and Control with Power Grids: A Review, cited in the IDS) and Casey et al (US 20250209234) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al (US 20180316184).
As to claim 20, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
As to claim 21, Campbell-Mollik-Casey teaches the system of claim 1,
Campbell teaches determining if faults occurs within a first station (see [0202] “to deal with the faults internal to the system 100”; also, see [0204], [0205] “The SUPER controller 142 may be equipped to respond faster than the hub controller 132, node controller 122, or SSPS controller 112 to internal and external systems faults. Action by the SUPER controller 142 may be followed by the hub controller 132 and/or the node controller 122 and then the SSPS controller 112”; also, see [0206]), and stations being in the same region (see Fig. 1N SSPS 110 suggests a region with a plurality of nodes/stations 120), and Casey teaches assets/entities are selected based on condition of location closest to a fault within a same region (see claim 1 above and see [0074]), However, Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the condition prioritizes a first entity supported by a first station if the fault occurs within the first station, and wherein the condition prioritizes a second entity supported by a second station in a same region as the first station if the fault occurs within the first station and if the one or more entities supported by the first station cannot fully address the fault (the term “the condition prioritizes” has been interpreted as assigning the entities closest to the fault including a first entity of a first station if the fault is within the first station, and assigning a second entity of a second station when the first entity cannot fully address the fault).
Hong teaches a system and method comprising selecting an entity based on a condition to compensate for a fault (see Fig. 3 fault within a first microgrid/station, the entities/DER are selected based on being closest to the fault), wherein the condition prioritizes a first entity supported by a first station if the fault occurs within the first station (see Fig. 3 if a first entity with the first microgrid/station has sufficient power, then the first entity is prioritized to provide power to the first microgrid/station, see Fig. 3 steps 305, 319, 321, and 317 and see [0040]-[0042] “At conditional 321, network controller 111 determines whether the DERs of the islanded portion of microgrid 110 can support the loads of the islanded portion of microgrid 110. This analysis may include determining the current power output and the maximum power output of each DER. For instance, a battery energy may be charging, but is capable of outputting sufficient power to support the loads. In another example, a DER, such as a hydroelectric DER could be controlled so as to increase power output. If the DERs can support the loads of the island, the island operates independently of the power grid and process 300 proceeds to operation 335 where a field crew is dispatched to the physical location of the fault location for total system restoration. Otherwise, process 300 proceeds to conditional 323”), and wherein the condition prioritizes a second entity supported by a second station in a same region as the first station if the fault occurs within the first station and if the one or more entities supported by the first station cannot fully address the fault (see Fig. 3 steps 321 if the DERs/entities within the first station cannot support the total loads, the system assigns/prioritize a second entity by a second station within the same region (step 329, 331), to provide power to the first microgrid/station to address the fault).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Campbell’s combination as taught above invention to include selecting an entity based on a condition to compensate for a fault, wherein the condition prioritizes a first entity supported by a first station if the fault occurs within the first station, and wherein the condition prioritizes a second entity supported by a second station in a same region as the first station if the fault occurs within the first station and if the one or more entities supported by the first station cannot fully address the fault as taught by Hong in order to reduce the effect of the fault on customers of the first station (see [0038] “Once the fault is isolated from the healthy portions of grid 100, process 300 attempts to connect any islanded portion of microgrid 110 to another microgrid of grid 100 in order to reduce the effect of fault isolation on loads receiving power from microgrid 110”).
As to claim 22, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 21 and is rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as cited in PTO form 892, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tani et al teaches a system comprising providing power to load with priority from a entity that stores energy (battery).
Capp et al teaches a first station/microgrid providing power to loads with priority, detecting a condition within the grid (see Fig. 5) and controlling one or more entities to alleviate the fault (see Fig. 1), and provide power from energy stored in an entity/battery, and if the energy does not fulfill/alleviates the fault, provide power from another entity/source energy 150 (see Fig. 5).
Yuan et al teaches a system comprising detecting the location of a fault and selecting an entity closest to the fault to alleviate the problem (0006; and see 0051, and [0056]).
No suggestions on how to overcome the prior art made of record were found at this point since controlling microgrids/stations to provide energy to other microgrids/stations or the grid based on conditions within the microgrid or the grid were widely used.
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 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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/O.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
