DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2025 and 10/26/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 13, 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Callegari (Coordinated Volt-Var Control in Microgrids)
Regarding claim 1,
Callegari teaches, A method for operating a controller for a microgrid, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of parameter data characterizing one or more regulation curves of one or more national grid codes, the one or more regulation curves relating to a set of functional variables for point of common coupling (PCC) functions performed by the controller; (Callegari in Page 3 in section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, the volt-var curve (regulation curve) is implemented in the CC (central controller) to support microgrids at the point of common coupling. Fig. 1 also teaches volt-var curve is characterized by a relationship between voltage and reactive power)
configuring messages to a plurality of distributed energy resources (DERs) interconnected to the PCC, the messages for reading input data from registers of each DER; and (Callegari in Page 3 in section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, the actual per-phase active Pmn and reactive Qmn power, maximum per-phase active Pmax,mn and reactive Qmax,mn power capability, RMS voltage Vn,rms and operational state flags must be exchanged between the n-th DER (connected in phase m) and CC)
performing the PCC functions to control the microgrid according to at least one of the one or more regulations curves, based on a subset of the input data from each DER that relates to the set of functional variables. (Page 3 Section Voltage Support of Internal MG Nodes teaches, If the previous case is not verified, CC analyzes if there is an internal MG voltage violation through the data packets received from the DER units, as shown in Fig. 1(d). If all voltages of the nodes are within the normative limits, the PBC in its standard form [12] is executed and the active αPm and reactive αQm power commands are broadcast to all DER units.)
Regarding claim 3,
Callegari teaches, The method of claim 2, wherein each DER of the plurality of DERs is classified into one of a load, a source, or a storage. (Callegari in Fig. 1 teaches each DER comprises a distributed generator)
Regarding claim 4,
Callegari teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein each respective regulation curve specifies a relationship between two functional variables of the set of functional variables, and each respective regulation curve comprises piecewise linear regions delineated by a plurality of end points, and wherein the set of parameter data includes coordinates of the plurality of end points delineating the piecewise linear regions. (Callegari in Fig. 1 shows the volt-var curve includes a relationship between voltage and reactive power and also shows the curve includes piecewise linear regions delineated by a plurality of end points)
Regarding claim 5,
Callegari teaches, The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more regulation curves include one or more of a reactive power vs voltage curve (Volt-Var), a reactive power vs active power curve (Watt-Var), a reactive power vs power factor curve (PF-Var), an active power vs voltage curve (Volt-Watt), a low voltage ride-through (LVRT) curve, a high voltage ride-through (HVRT) curve, or a frequency droop curve. (Callegari in Page 3 in section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, the volt-var curve)
Regarding claim 6,
Callegari teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more national grid codes are selected from a predefined library of national grid codes. (Callegari in Page 1 section: Introduction and page 3 section: Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches volt-var function is selected from IEEE 1547-2018)
Regarding claim 7,
Callegari teaches, The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined library of national grid codes includes one or more of IEEE 1547 Code, CEI0-16 Code, or VDE AR4110 Code. (Callegari in Page 1 section: Introduction and page 3 section: Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches volt-var function is selected from IEEE 1547-2018)
Regarding claim 9,
Callegari teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the set of parameter data characterizing the one or more regulation curves of the one or more national grid codes is preloaded in the controller. (Callegari in page 3 section: Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches volt-var function from IEEE 1547-2018 is being implemented by the central controller (CC) therefore it is preloaded in the controller.)
Regarding claim 13,
Callegari teaches, A controller for controlling a microgrid, the microgrid including a plurality of distributed energy resources (DERs) interconnected to a point of common coupling (PCC), (Fig. 1 and page 2 section: Microgrid Control Architecture teaches, a central controller for controlling a microgrid including a plurality of DER connected to a PCC) the controller comprising:
a memory configured to store a set of parameter data characterizing one or more regulation curves of one or more national grid codes, the one or more regulation curves relating to a set of functional variables for PCC functions; and (Callegari in Page 3 in section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, the volt-var curve (regulation curve) is implemented in the CC (central controller) to support microgrids at the point of common coupling. Fig. 1 also teaches volt-var curve is characterized by a relationship between voltage and reactive power)
one or more processors configured to send messages to the plurality of DERs for reading input data from registers of each DER; and(Callegari in Page 3 in section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, the actual per-phase active Pmn and reactive Qmn power, maximum per-phase active Pmax,mn and reactive Qmax,mn power capability, RMS voltage Vn,rms and operational state flags must be exchanged between the n-th DER (connected in phase m) and CC)
perform the PCC functions to control the microgrid according to at least one of the one or more regulations curves, based on a subset of the input data from each DER that relates to the set of functional variables. (Page 3 Section Voltage Support of Internal MG Nodes teaches, If the previous case is not verified, CC analyzes if there is an internal MG voltage violation through the data packets received from the DER units, as shown in Fig. 1(d). If all voltages of the nodes are within the normative limits, the PBC in its standard form [12] is executed and the active αPm and reactive αQm power commands are broadcast to all DER units.)
Regarding claim 15,
Callegari teaches, The controller of claim 13, wherein each respective regulation curve specifies a relationship between two functional variables of the set of functional variables, and each respective regulation curve comprises piecewise linear regions delineated by a plurality of end points, and wherein the set of parameter data includes coordinates of the plurality of end points delineating the piecewise linear regions. (Callegari in Fig. 1 shows the volt-var curve includes a relationship between voltage and reactive power and also shows the curve includes piecewise linear regions delineated by a plurality of end points)
Regarding claim 16,
Callegari teaches, The controller of claim 13, wherein the one or more national grid codes are selected from a predefined library of national grid codes. (Callegari in Page 1 section: Introduction and page 3 section: Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches volt-var function is selected from IEEE 1547-2018)
Regarding claim 18,
Callegari teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, upon being executed by one or more hardware processors, causing performance of a method for operating a controller for a microgrid, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of parameter data characterizing one or more regulation curves of one or more national grid codes, the one or more regulation curves relating to a set of functional variables for point of common coupling (PCC) functions performed by the controller; (Callegari in Page 3 in section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, the volt-var curve (regulation curve) is implemented in the CC (central controller) to support microgrids at the point of common coupling. Fig. 1 also teaches volt-var curve is characterized by a relationship between voltage and reactive power)
configuring messages to a plurality of distributed energy resources (DERs) interconnected to the PCC, the messages for reading input data from registers of each DER; and (Callegari in Page 3 in section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, the actual per-phase active Pmn and reactive Qmn power, maximum per-phase active Pmax,mn and reactive Qmax,mn power capability, RMS voltage Vn,rms and operational state flags must be exchanged between the n-th DER (connected in phase m) and CC)
performing the PCC functions to control the microgrid according to at least one of the one or more regulations curves, based on a subset of the input data from each DER that relates to the set of functional variables. (Page 3 Section Voltage Support of Internal MG Nodes teaches, If the previous case is not verified, CC analyzes if there is an internal MG voltage violation through the data packets received from the DER units, as shown in Fig. 1(d). If all voltages of the nodes are within the normative limits, the PBC in its standard form [12] is executed and the active αPm and reactive αQm power commands are broadcast to all DER units.)
Regarding claim 19,
Callegari teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein each respective regulation curve specifies a relationship between two functional variables of the set of functional variables, and each respective regulation curve comprises piecewise linear regions delineated by a plurality of end points, and wherein the set of parameter data includes coordinates of the plurality of end points delineating the piecewise linear regions. (Callegari in Fig. 1 shows the volt-var curve includes a relationship between voltage and reactive power and also shows the curve includes piecewise linear regions delineated by a plurality of end points)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callegari (Coordinated Volt-Var Control in Microgrids) in view of Murphy (US5768148A)
Regarding claim 2,
Callegari doesn’t teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a register mapping for each respective DER, the register mapping linking a subset of the registers of the respective DER to the set of functional variables; and (Callegari in Page 3 section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, central controller exchanges data with DERs and section: Voltage Support of Internal MG Nodes teaches central controller receives data packages from DERs. However, it doesn’t teach register mapping. Murphy in Column 4 Line 45-54 teaches, Referring to FIG. 30, the DDE server maps item names to their register addresses. Fig. 30 teaches items include functional variables (e.g. voltage and current))
parsing the input data from the respective DER to obtain the subset of the input data using the register mapping. (Murphy in Column 15 Line 33-37 teaches, The DDE server polls the devices which are in an active list and from each device it acquires registers (items) which are in the active list.)
Murphy is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a power management control system (see Column 1 Line 5-7). A combination of Murphy with Callegari would allow the system to obtain register mapping for each respective DER, the register mapping linking a subset of the registers of the respective DER to the set of functional variables and parse the input data from the respective DER. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Murphy with Callegari. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow acquiring consistent device event data item for dissimilar devices, automatically performs time synchronizing for all supported devices and provides a consistent waveform interface, as taught by Murphy in Column 3 Line 58-67.
Regarding claim 14,
Callegari doesn’t teach, The controller of claim 13, wherein: the memory is further configured to store a register mapping for each respective DER, the register mapping linking a subset of the registers of the respective DER to the set of functional variables; and (Callegari in Page 3 section Upstream Grid Voltage Support Capability teaches, central controller exchanges data with DERs and section: Voltage Support of Internal MG Nodes teaches central controller receives data packages from DERs. However, it doesn’t teach register mapping. Murphy in Column 4 Line 45-54 teaches, Referring to FIG. 30, the DDE server maps item names to their register addresses. Fig. 30 teaches items include functional variables (e.g. voltage and current))
the one or more processors are further configured to parse the input data from respective DER to obtain the subset of the input data using the register mapping. (Murphy in Column 15 Line 33-37 teaches, The DDE server polls the devices which are in an active list and from each device it acquires registers (items) which are in the active list.)
Murphy is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a power management control system (see Column 1 Line 5-7). A combination of Murphy with Callegari would allow the system to obtain register mapping for each respective DER, the register mapping linking a subset of the registers of the respective DER to the set of functional variables and parse the input data from the respective DER. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Murphy with Callegari. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow acquiring consistent device event data item for dissimilar devices, automatically performs time synchronizing for all supported devices and provides a consistent waveform interface, as taught by Murphy in Column 3 Line 58-67.
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callegari (Coordinated Volt-Var Control in Microgrids) in view of Ayana (US20160111879A1)
Regarding claim 8,
Callegari doesn’t teach, The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more national grid codes include two or more different national grid codes, wherein the one or more regulation curves include a plurality of regulation curves of the two or more different national grid codes, and wherein the set of parameter data characterizing the plurality of regulation curves have a common data format across the different national grid codes. (Ayana in ¶0016 teaches, The configuration of system 100 allows a single genset design (e.g., genset 102) to meet multiple country grid codes via a software change or update that may be transmitted to inverter 106. In one embodiment, the configuration data specifies a low voltage ride through (LVRT) output model, which may correspond to a country or grid code. In this manner, the LVRT configuration of the inverter 106 may be configured to handle various LVRT events and may be configured according to different country and grid codes, even when using a single type of genset 102.)
Ayana is an art in the area of interest as it relates to grid compliance codes and requirements (see ¶0001). A combination of Ayana with Callegari would allow the national grid code to include multiple country grid codes and regulation curves to include a plurality of regulation curves of the two or more different national grid codes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Ayana with Callegari. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to handle various LVRT (low voltage ride through) events according to different country and grid codes, as taught by Ayana in ¶0016)
Regarding claim 17,
Callegari doesn’t teach, The controller of claim 13, wherein the one or more national grid codes include two or more different national grid codes, wherein the one or more regulation curves include a plurality of regulation curves of the two or more different national grid codes, and wherein the set of parameter data characterizing the plurality of regulation curves have a common data format across the two or more different national grid codes. (Ayana in ¶0016 teaches, The configuration of system 100 allows a single genset design (e.g., genset 102) to meet multiple country grid codes via a software change or update that may be transmitted to inverter 106. In one embodiment, the configuration data specifies a low voltage ride through (LVRT) output model, which may correspond to a country or grid code. In this manner, the LVRT configuration of the inverter 106 may be configured to handle various LVRT events and may be configured according to different country and grid codes, even when using a single type of genset 102.)
Ayana is an art in the area of interest as it relates to grid compliance codes and requirements (see ¶0001). A combination of Ayana with Callegari would allow the national grid code to include multiple country grid codes and regulation curves to include a plurality of regulation curves of the two or more different national grid codes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Ayana with Callegari. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to handle various LVRT (low voltage ride through) events according to different country and grid codes, as taught by Ayana in ¶0016)
Regarding claim 20,
Callegari doesn’t teach, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the one or more national grid codes include two or more different national grid codes, wherein the one or more regulation curves include a plurality of regulation curves of the two or more different national grid codes, and wherein the set of parameter data characterizing the plurality of regulation curves have a common data format across the two or more different national grid codes. (Ayana (20160111879) in ¶0016 teaches, The configuration of system 100 allows a single genset design (e.g., genset 102) to meet multiple country grid codes via a software change or update that may be transmitted to inverter 106. In one embodiment, the configuration data specifies a low voltage ride through (LVRT) output model, which may correspond to a country or grid code. In this manner, the LVRT configuration of the inverter 106 may be configured to handle various LVRT events and may be configured according to different country and grid codes, even when using a single type of genset 102.)
Ayana is an art in the area of interest as it relates to grid compliance codes and requirements (see ¶0001). A combination of Ayana with Callegari would allow the national grid code to include multiple country grid codes and regulation curves to include a plurality of regulation curves of the two or more different national grid codes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Ayana with Callegari. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to handle various LVRT (low voltage ride through) events according to different country and grid codes, as taught by Ayana in ¶0016)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callegari (Coordinated Volt-Var Control in Microgrids) in view of Saboor (US20160322821A1)
Regarding claim 10,
Callegari doesn’t teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving from a user additional parameter data characterizing one or more additional regulation curves of one or more additional national grid codes; and (Saboor in ¶0047 teaches, power plant controller receives inputs and operational targets from utility operators or transmission grid operators or owners. In an embodiment, the PPC 150 receives targets set by the grid operator and thereafter generates active and reactive power control references based on such targets. According to an embodiment, the PPC 150 generates and distributes or dispatches active and reactive power references P* and Q* (or P.sub.ref and Q.sub.ref) to wind turbine generators 120 in the plant 100, as according to incoming inputs or targets from an electrical grid operator. )
saving the additional parameter data in the controller. (Saboor in ¶0047 teaches, based on the inputs power plant controller carries out processing to cause the wind power plant 100 to supply or respond as requested by the inputs and/or operational targets.)
Saboor is an art in the area of interest as it relates to controlling a reactive current injection in a wind power plant (see ¶0001). A combination of Saboor with Callegari would allow the combined system to receive additional parameter characterizing additional regulation curves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Saboor with Callegari. One would have been motivate to do so because doing so would allow reactive current injection which can continue adequately support the grid through a grid fault occurrence by complying with reactive current injection requirements at the point of common coupling, as taught by Saboor in ¶0007.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callegari (Coordinated Volt-Var Control in Microgrids) in view of Diamond (US20220263317A1)
Regarding claim 11,
Callegari doesn’t teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising: allocating aggregate active power among the plurality of DERs based on a fractional state of charge (S.O.C.) of each DER relative to a total S.O.C. cumulated in the plurality of DERs. (Diamond in ¶0067 teaches, power allocation associated with a set of energy storage units. Also teaches, The power allocation may be determined based on an average state-of-charge associated with the set of energy storage units and an average state-of-charge associated with other sets of energy storage units (e.g., that are managed by other controllers).)
Diamond is an art in the area of interest as it relates to energy storage unit (see ¶0067). A combination of Diamond with Callegari would allow allocating active power among the plurality of DERs based on a fractional state of charge (S.O.C.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Diamond with Callegari. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would enable efficient management of an extensive amount of energy resource devices, as taught by Diamond in ¶0003.
Regarding claim 12,
Callegari and Diamond teaches, The method of claim 11, further comprising:
upon detecting one of (i) a new DER entering the microgrid, (ii) an existing DER leaving the microgrid, or (iii) a change in any of the plurality of DERs, updating the allocation of aggregate active power. (Diamond in ¶0049 teaches, An initially determined power allocation may be analyzed in accordance with a relevant constraint(s) to determine validity of the power allocation. In the event the power allocation is invalid based on a constraint, the allocation engine 222 may modify the power allocation within the confines of the constraint.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hovgaard (US20220285945A1) in ¶0120 teaches, PPC 8 determines limits for the relevant chance-constraints governing operation of the wind power plant 12. A chance-constraint relates to satisfying operational requirements, and the limit of each chance-constraint is the likelihood of satisfying the constraint, typically expressed in terms of a percentage of operation time in which the constraint will not be violated in the long term. For example, a limit for successfully delivering active power to the grid 19 when demanded may be set at 99% of the time, meaning that it is allowable for the wind power plant 12 to fail to deliver active power demanded by the grid up to 1% of the time in the long term. ¶0121 teaches, Each limit is determined according to operational objectives and grid requirements, and so differs for each application. Determining a chance-constraint limit may entail obtaining it from a user defining a constraint limit via an interface to the PPC 8.
Lee (Optimal Parameters of Volt–Var Function in Smart Inverters for Improving System Performance) in page 4-5 section 2.2. Volt–Var Function of Smart Inverter teaches, the volt–var function of a smart inverter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116 /KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights