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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US9088162 to Shu et al. and in view of US10536007 to Beaston et al.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20110257804 to Goel et al. (hereinafter “Goel”), in view of US7576517 to Cotton et al. (hereinafter “Cotton”), further in view of US9088162 to Shu et al. (hereinafter “Shu”), in view of US10536007 to Beaston et al. (hereinafter “Beaston”).
As for claim 1, Goel substantially discloses an energy management system (Goel, see [0013]-[0014]), comprising:
one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Goel, see [0015]-[0016]) to:
receive a first dataset from a first energy storage system in a first format and a second dataset from a second energy storage system (Goel, see [0071] for receiving power management data from elements of power environment 106, see [0047] for power management data from elements of power environment 106 being in a first format, see Fig. 1 for power environment 106 including power systems 128 and see [0025] for power systems 128 includes energy storage systems);
execute a module to aggregate the first dataset and the second dataset into a third dataset, the third dataset having a standard format for a core processing system agnostic to hardware of the first energy storage system and the second energy storage system to execute on (Goel, see [0003]-[0004] for providing provide a framework that is interoperable among a number of heterogeneous power environments and/or microgrids. As a particular example, certain embodiments may implement a service-oriented architecture or other abstraction layer that abstracts various operations across heterogeneous power environments, see [0047] for translating data both from a format that is specific to a particular element of power environment 106 to an abstract format that can be used for messaging and data storage across different types of elements and see [0075] for analyzing all of power management data stored in storage module); and
execute the core processing system to generate a control decision to control the first energy storage system or the second energy storage system based on the third dataset (Goel, see [0075] and [0079]).
Goel does not explicitly disclose receiving second dataset from a second energy storage system in a second format.
However, Cotton in an analogous art discloses receiving second dataset from a second energy storage system in a second format (Cotton, see col. 2 lines 39-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Cotton into the system of Goel. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the battery systems are properly maintained (Cotton, see col. 1 line 36).
The combination of Cotton and Goel does not explicitly disclose execute a plurality of lower level modules of a plurality of modules nested within each other, the plurality of lower level modules comprising drivers to interface with a first energy storage system and a second energy storage system, execute at least one higher level module of the plurality of modules to perform actions, wherein the plurality of lower level modules and the at least one higher level module form a hierarchy.
However, Shu in an analogous art discloses execute a plurality of lower level modules of a plurality of modules nested within each other, the plurality of lower level modules to interface with a first energy storage system and a second energy storage system (Shu, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 18-22 “the upper intermediary module is able to treat the low intermediary module in the group as quasi monitoring and equalizing modules, and to treat the group statuses of the low intermediary modules as quasi cell information”, it is noted that treating the lower module’s group status as if it were itself just raw cell data can be interpreted as the plurality of modules nested within each other, see also col. 5 line 12-col. 6 line 11), execute at least one higher level module of the plurality of modules to perform actions (Shu, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and col. 5 line 12-col. 6 line 11), wherein the plurality of lower level modules and the at least one higher level module form a hierarchy (Shu, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and col. 5 line 12-col. 6 line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Shu into the above combination of Goel and Cotton. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to effectively reduce the amount of data required for managing batteries to speed up the decision process and to cut down the time required for the power system controller to obtain the status information of the battery set, so as to meet real-time monitoring requirements of the power system (Shu, see col. 3 lines 30-35).
The combination of Goel, Cotton and Shu does not explicitly disclose drivers to interface with energy storage systems. However, Beaston in an analogous art discloses drivers to interface with energy storage systems (Beaston, see Fig. 4, Fig. 30 and their corresponding paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Beaston into the above combination of Goel, Cotton and Shu. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to allow electricity to be generated and used in a more cost effective and reliable manner (Beaston, see col. 1 lines 40-41).
Claim 12 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses the core processing system is configured to execute applications on the third dataset in the standard format (Goel, see [0075]-[0080]).
Claim 20 is a CRM claim corresponds to the system claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses aggregate the first dataset and the second dataset into the third dataset in the standard format for the core processing system to execute on (Goel, see [0047] and [0075]). Beaston further discloses execute a first module for a first battery of the first energy storage system, the first module comprising a driver to interface with the first battery of the first energy storage system, the first module to aggregate first battery data of the first battery (Beaston, see Fig. 4, Fig. 30 and their corresponding paragraphs); execute a second module for a second battery of the first energy storage system, the second module comprising a second driver to interface with the second battery of the first energy storage system, the second module to aggregate second battery data of the second battery (Beaston, see Fig. 4, Fig. 30 and their corresponding paragraphs); execute a third module for the first energy storage system, the third module to aggregate the first battery data and the second battery data into the first dataset (Beaston, see Fig. 4, Fig. 30 and their corresponding paragraphs); and execute a fourth module to aggregate (Beaston, see Fig. 35 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Beaston into the above combination of Goel, Cotton and Shu. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to allow electricity to be generated and used in a more cost effective and reliable manner (Beaston, see col. 1 lines 40-41).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel, in view of Cotton, in view of Shu, in view of Beaston, further in view of US9952575 to Nanjundaiah et al. (hereinafter “Nanjundaiah”).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses the instructions cause the one or more processors to: aggregate the first dataset and the second dataset to aggregate the first dataset and the second dataset into the third dataset for the core processing system (Goel, see [0075]).
The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose reduce the datasets. However, Nanjundaiah in an analogous art discloses reduce the datasets (Nanjundaiah, see col. 1 lines 44-52, it is noted that the datasets transmitted would be reduced when the datasets being transmitted is being encrypted in a format that avoids transmission of a plurality of repetitive data parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Nanjundaiah into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to save the cost associated with transfer of data by avoiding transmission of repetitive data (Nanjundaiah, see col. 1 lines 34-49).
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 2, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 2.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel, in view of Cotton, in view of Shu, in view of Beaston, further in view of US20170102434 to Wenzel et al. (hereinafter “Wenzel”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses determine, based on the control decision, commands to adjusts statuses of first energy storage system and second energy storage system and cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the commands to fulfill the control decision (Goel, see [0025] and [0079]). The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose determine power setpoints for the energy storage systems and operate the energy storage systems based on the power setpoints.
However, Wenzel in an analogous art discloses determine power setpoints for the energy storage system and operate the energy storage systems based on the power setpoints (Wenzel, see [0186]-[0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wenzel into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to avoid premature degradation of battery assets (Wenzel. See [0006]).
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 4, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 4.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses determine, based on the control decision, commands to adjusts statuses of first energy storage system and second energy storage system and cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the commands to fulfill the control decision (Goel, see [0025] and [0079]). The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose determine power setpoints for the energy storage systems that maximizes a profit value and reduces wear on batteries of the energy storage systems and operate the energy storage systems based on the power setpoints.
However, Wenzel in an analogous art discloses determine power setpoints for the energy storage systems that maximizes a profit value and reduces wear on batteries of the energy storage systems and operate the energy storage systems based on the power setpoints (Wenzel, see [0012]-[0014] and [0186]-[0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wenzel into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to avoid premature degradation of battery assets (Wenzel. See [0006]).
Claim 16 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 5, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 5.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the commands to fulfill the control decision (Goel, see [0025] and [0079]). The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose determine, based on the control decision, a first power setpoint for the first energy storage system and a second power setpoint for the second energy storage system based on a state of charge of batteries of the first energy storage system and the second energy storage system and cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the first power setpoint and the second energy storage system to operate based on the second power setpoint.
However, Wenzel in an analogous art discloses determine, based on the control decision, a first power setpoint for the first energy storage system and a second power setpoint for the second energy storage system based on a state of charge of batteries of the first energy storage system and the second energy storage system and cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the first power setpoint and the second energy storage system to operate based on the second power setpoint (Wenzel, see [0014]-[0015] and [0186]-[0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wenzel into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to avoid premature degradation of battery assets (Wenzel. See [0006]).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, Goel further discloses the core processing system is configured to execute applications on the third dataset in the standard format (Goel, see [0025], [0047] and [0075]). The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose wherein the applications are configured to regulate a frequency of an energy grid.
However, Wenzel in an analogous art discloses wherein the applications are configured to regulate a frequency of an energy grid (Wenzel, see [0060] and [0064]-[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wenzel into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to avoid premature degradation of battery assets while helping the grid regulating its frequency (Wenzel. See [0006]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel, in view of Cotton, in view of Shu, in view of Beaston, further in view of US9817376 to Wartena et al. (hereinafter “Wartena”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses execute a first energy application with the core processing system based on the third dataset to generate the control decision, generate a second control decision based on the third dataset and cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the control decision and the second control decision (Goel, see [0025] and [0079]). The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose execute a second energy application with the core processing system.
However, Wartena in an analogous art discloses execute a second energy application with the core processing system (Wartena, see col. 5 line 58-col. 6 line 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wartena into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an adaptive energy storage operating system that is programmed or otherwise configured to operate and optimize various types of energy storage devices (Wartena, see abstract).
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 7, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 7.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses execute a first energy application with the core processing system based on the third dataset to generate the control decision, generate a second control decision based on the third dataset and cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the control decision and the second control decision (Goel, see [0025] and [0079]). The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose execute a second energy application with the core processing system, aggregate the control decision and the second control decision into an aggregate control decision.
However, Wartena in an analogous art discloses execute a second energy application with the core processing system (Wartena, see col. 5 line 58-col. 6 line 12), aggregate the control decision and the second control decision into an aggregate control decision (Wartena, see col. 5 lines 28-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wartena into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an adaptive energy storage operating system that is programmed or otherwise configured to operate and optimize various types of energy storage devices (Wartena, see abstract).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel, in view of Cotton, in view of Shu, in view of Beaston, in view of Wartena, further in view of Wenzel.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses execute an energy application with the core processing system based on the third dataset to generate a second control decision, and cause the first energy storage system to operate based on the first control decision and the second control decision (Goel, see [0025] and [0079]). The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose aggregate the control decision and the second control decision into an aggregate control decision, determine, based on the aggregate control decision commands for the first energy storage system and the second energy storage system, fulfill the aggregate control decision.
However, Wartena in an analogous art discloses aggregate the control decision and the second control decision into an aggregate control decision, determine, based on the aggregate control decision commands for the first energy storage system and the second energy storage system, fulfill the aggregate control decision (Wartena, see col. 5 lines 28-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wartena into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an adaptive energy storage operating system that is programmed or otherwise configured to operate and optimize various types of energy storage devices (Wartena, see abstract).
The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu, Beaston and Wartena does not explicitly discloses determine, power setpoints for the energy storage systems and cause the energy storage systems to operate based on the power setpoints.
However, Wenzel in an analogous art discloses determine, power setpoints for the energy storage systems and cause the energy storage systems to operate based on the power setpoints (Wenzel, see [0014]-[0015] and [0186]-[0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wenzel into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu, Beaston, and Wartena. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to avoid premature degradation of battery assets (Wenzel. See [0006]).
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 9, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel, in view of Cotton, in view of Shu, in view of Beaston, in view of US10424945 to Yoo.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Goel further discloses execute the core processing system to generate the control decision (Goel, see [0079]).
The combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston does not explicitly disclose aggregate a first value of the first dataset and a second value of the second dataset into a single aggregate value, the first value representing a first characteristic of a type of the first energy storage system, and the second value representing a second characteristic of the type of the second energy storage system; and execute the processing system based on the single aggregate value.
However, Yoo in an analogous art discloses aggregate a first value of the first dataset and a second value of the second dataset into a single aggregate value, the first value representing a first characteristic of a type of the first energy storage system, and the second value representing a second characteristic of the type of the second energy storage system; and execute the processing system based on the single aggregate value (Yoo, see col. 8 lines 15-62, it is noted that SOC of ESS310 can be interpreted as first value of the first dataset and SOC of ESS320 can be interpreted as a second value of the second dataset and the SOCav can be interpreted as the single aggregate value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Yoo into the above combination of Goel, Cotton, Shu and Beaston. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an energy management system which is capable of reflecting a state of each energy storage system in the energy management system (Yoo, see col. 1 lines 17-20).
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 10, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 10.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights