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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the after final submission (8/22/25), and incorporated into the RCE, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants’ comments were rebutted in the Advisory Action – the Applicants filed an RCE without including any additional comments to indicate why the amendments to claim 1 are not obvious over the prior art.
Namely, the contents of the first/second capacity information is disclosed by Mowry (par 192-194, 200) and using both informations is taught by Chatterjee. Mowry teaches that the capacity is whether a power source has sufficient power to share or not. This sufficiency satisfies the broad category of “power output data” or “power storage capacity data”. The Applicants do not contend otherwise and have not provided any remarks to explain why the names of information are any different than Mowry’s (in)sufficiency information. The Applicants also do not dispute the citations to and combination with Chatterjee for the teaching of basing a power distribution control on “both” informations (incoming and outgoing).
Lastly, the Applicants dismiss Meeker as “cited only for the purposes of dependent claims rejections” (Remarks, 8/22/25, page 12). But the amendment to claim 1 takes a limitation from claim 2 and, thus, Meeker is critical to the allowability of the cost function evaluation. The reference can’t just be dismissed. The Applicants do not dispute Meeker’s disclosure cost function disclosure or how the references are combined. Thus, the obviousness rejection is maintained in this Action.
Furthermore, the Applicants have amended claim 2 to define the “cost” function evaluation as being “minimizing a total energy loss”. While “cost” implies a monetary analysis, the Applicants appear to want to redefine it as evaluating energy loss. This is taught by all three references:
Mowry, at paragraphs 45 and 83, discloses the synchronization of parallel sources is to create stability. This obviously leads to increased efficiency and reduced losses. Paragraph 94 discloses the combination of multiple power sources is controlled to avoid losses. Paragraph 95 describes the desire to maximum power output (i.e. reduce losses).
Chatterjee, at paragraph 60, states the goal to minimize loss. Paragraphs 25, 29 and 75 disclose the goal to increase efficiency (i.e. reduce losses).
Meeker at figure 5 (item 504) and paragraphs 62-63 explicitly disclose the cost function evaluation. Paragraphs 18 and 44 disclose reducing the cost of using traditional sources or energy in general. Paragraph 19 states that the author’s approach “may make it possible to achieve an efficient allocation of resources”.
Generally, the approach in electronics is to make systems more efficient and reduce losses. The claim states this goal without addressing how it is done in any manner to distinguish over the prior art.
Drawings
Replacement figure 1 was received on August 22, 205. This drawing is acceptable and will be entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are objected to because
the last limitation about the cost function evaluation is redundant. Claim 1, for example, recites control an amount of power to the power bus based on both the first capacity information and the second capacity information by evaluating a cost function using both the first capacity information and the second capacity information and determining an amount of power to the bus based on the evaluation”. The two underlined phrases are redundant to each other. The two bolded phrases are redundant to each other.
In the last limitation “amount of power to the bus” should be “to the power bus”, as the full name must be used each time a limitation is mentioned.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry (US 2021/0328438) in view of Chatterjee (US 2024/0088688) and Meeker (US 2019/0036340).
With respect to claim 1, Mowry discloses a power control system (fig 6, 24-25; par 97-98, 191-201) comprising:
an inverter (2407) configured to provide a first AC signal from a first power source (2414; the source is not claimed);
synchronization circuitry (within 2407; see fig 6, item 630; par 97; “self-synchronizing” is disclosed in par 191) configured to couple to a power bus (“output” in fig 24), the synchronization circuitry configured to synchronize the first AC signal with at least a second AC signal on the power bus; and
a controller (2404) coupled to the inverter, the controller configured to:
provide first capacity information associated with the first power source to a second power control system coupled to the power bus (via external communication link 2425), wherein the first capacity information comprises at least one of a first power output data and a first power storage data (par 192-194, 200 – the sufficiency/insufficiency of power is the “capacity” of the system to meet the demands of its load and qualifies as “power output data” and/or “power storage capacity”);
receive second capacity information associated with a second power source from the second power control system, wherein the second capacity information comprises at least one of a second power output data and a second power storage capacity (par 192-194, 200 – there is no “master” or centralized controller – each controller can send a first information; therefore each controller can also receive the “second” information); and
control an amount of power to the power bus based on the first capacity information and the second capacity information (fig 25; par 195-200) by evaluating a cost function using both capacity informations to determine the amount of power to the bus (par 45, 83, 94-95).
Mowry discloses the communication link can enable multiple core cores to interact to create an “autonomous system with cooperative complex system behavior” (par 194). This interaction includes controllers determining if they are providing (in)sufficient power to meet load demand and transmitting information to this effect to another controller (in a separate system). The sufficiency of power satisfies the board limitation of “power output data” and “power storage data” – these information items are only broadly named – the claim does not actually define what is included within this information or how it is conveyed.
Each Mowry controller is identical and has the structure to both transmit (“first”) to and receive (“second”) the information from a neighbor controller. Thus, the Mowry controller is configured as claimed.
Mowry discloses a controller that controls power distribution “based on” the first information (see fig 25 – power distribution within its system) and “based on” the second information (par 200 – power distribution to comply with another system’s request/command). It is unclear, however, how Mowry uses “both” of these informations. Paragraph 200 states that a controller (with insufficient generated power) can ask a neighbor to commission, but it does not explain what happens if that neighbor also has insufficient generated power.
Mowry discloses a “cost function” evaluation because the reference discloses reducing losses in the system. Claim 2 defines the “cost” as an efficiency issue (not monetary).
Chatterjee discloses a power control system (fig 1, 6; par 20-38, 76-84) comprising:
an inverter (103n; par 26) configured to provide a first AC signal from a first power source (101n; the source is not claimed);
a controller (107n) coupled to the inverter, the controller configured to:
provide first capacity information associated with the first power source to a second power control system coupled to the power bus (via communication link 111; step 603; par 79), wherein the first capacity information comprises at least one of a first power output data or a first power storage capacity data (par 37);
receive second capacity information associated with a second power source from the second power control system (step 605; par 80), wherein the second capacity information comprises at least one of a second power output data and a second power storage capacity data (par 37); and
control an amount of power to the power bus based on both the first capacity information and the second capacity information (steps 607-613; par 81-84) by evaluating a cost function using both capacity informations to determine an amount of power to the bus (par 25, 29, 60, 75).
Chatterjee discloses a DER controller that determines its system capacity (par 37). This (“first”) information is provided to other controllers. Their (“second”) information is received by the controller. The flowchart in figure 6 clearly shows how the control of power is “based on” both informations. This can be seen in that the control steps come after “both” first/second informations steps. Paragraph 81 also discloses that the first/second information determines the assignment of microgrids and which controller is supervisor. The claim does not define “how” the two informations are used – just that the result is “based on” the information. Chatterjee satisfies this requirement.
Chatterjee then uses both informations to reduce losses in the system. Thus, Chatterjee satisfies the claimed definition of a cost function evaluation (i.e. it is about power efficiency, not monetary cost).
Mowry and Chatterjee are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely DER networks with controllers that share capacity information. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Mowry to have the distribution of power be based on both informations, as taught by Chatterjee. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve conflicts between systems. As noted above Mowry is silent as to how two controllers (both with insufficient capacity) can command each other to share power they don’t have. Chatterjee provides a solution to aggregate sources/loads and then determine how to allocate power.
To make the art rejection complete – and to maintain all references cited in the previous Action – the references are interpreted as not expressly disclosing the term “cost function” (even though the references teach “minimizing a total energy loss of the power control system”, as the Applicants define the cost function in claim 2).
Mowry discloses controlling the inverter in response to first information (fig 25) and second information (par 200) and Chatterjee discloses controlling power distribution in response to both first/second informations. The combination does not expressly disclose that this control comprises evaluating a cost function. Meeker discloses a distributed energy source network with various renewable energy sources (fig 1), where power control over a source is based on evaluating a cost function (par 23, 26-27, 58). Thus, in the combination, Meeker’s cost function would be used to determine how to discharge any/all of the Mowry power sources to the power bus.
The combination and Meeker are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely DER networks. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify either Mowry and/or Chatterjee to include evaluating a cost function, as taught by Meeker. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce costs of operating the network.
The claim only broadly recites “evaluating a cost function” – there is no indication in the claim of what steps are taken, how the cost function is utilized, or what consequences result (i.e. how the sources/inverters are controlled). Thus, no explicit use is required to be demonstrated by the prior art – only the generic use of such a cost function in a distributed energy resource system. The claim also only broadly recites that the cost function (or the evaluation, it is unclear) is “based on” the two informations. There is no indication in the claim of how the informations are actually used to create a new information item.
With respect to claim 2, Mowry (par 45, 83, 94-95), Chatterjee (par 25, 29, 60, 75) and Meeker (par 18, 44), individually and as a combination, disclose that the cost function comprises minimizing a total energy loss of the power control system and the second power control system.
Mowry further discloses the cost function is subject, for each of the first/second power sources, to a second constraint for a minimum power storage capacity (par 68). Mowry uses cell-balancing to ensure that no storage battery drops below a minimum capacity.
Meeker further discloses the cost function is subject, for each of the first/second power sources, to at least one of a first constraint for maximum power output (par 64) or a second constraint for a minimum power storage capacity (par 64). Meeker uses historical data to know when power sources would be producing their maximum power and when batteries would be depleted to their minimums (and then takes steps to counter those).
With respect to claim 3, Mowry (par 192-193), Chatterjee (fig 6, step 605) and Meeker (par 57-58) all disclose the controller is further configured to receive demand information, and wherein said control of the amount of power is further based on the demand information (Mowry, par 200; Chatterjee steps 607-613; Meeker par 57-58).
With respect to claim 4, Mowry discloses the synchronization circuitry comprises at least one of a non-linear circuit or a chaotic circuit (at least par 41).
With respect to claim 5, Mowry discloses a power line (fig 6; unlabeled horizontal conductor between 630 and 650) coupled to the inverter (610) and the synchronization circuitry (630), wherein the inverter is configured to receive a DC signal (inherent – also see fig 24, inverter 2407 inputs DC from source 2414 or battery 2406) from the first power source, to convert the DC signal into the first AC signal (inherent function of an inverter), and further configured to provide the first AC signal to the power line (see fig 6), and wherein the synchronization circuitry is configured to receive the first AC signal from the power line (via 640 or directly from inverter 610), and further configured to provide the synchronized first AC signal on the power bus (output of 630).
With respect to claim 6, Mowry discloses each of the first and second power sources comprises at least one of solar PV, a diesel generator, a fuel cell, a wind turbine, a hydroelectric facility, a bio-power source, an ESS, or any combination thereof (par 76).
The Examiner notes that the second source is not a distinct claimed limitation. It is part of an unclaimed second system. Claim 1 is clearly directed to just one power control system (see claim 11, which is directed to multiple such systems). The type of source in the second system does not affect or further narrow the structure of the claimed power control system. The only difference that a second source would have on the system is that its controller would provide different capacity information to the first controller – but this information does not further define the structure of the claimed power control system.
With respect to claim 7, Mowry discloses the first capacity information comprises at least one of a location of the first power source, maximum power output from the first power source (par 200), or minimum power output from the first power source. Mowry discloses the capacity information indicates “if the power generated is sufficient for [] load demands” (par 200). This is the maximum power output of the first power source.
Alternatively, Chatterjee discloses the first capacity information comprise at least one of max or min power (par 37).
With respect to claim 8, Mowry discloses an energy storage device (2406) coupled to the controller, wherein the first capacity information further comprises power storage capacity of the energy storage device (par 200).
With respect to claim 9, Mowry discloses a charge controller (203) coupled to the energy storage device, and configured to control an amount of power to store in the energy storage device based on the amount of power to the power bus and the first capacity information (par 66).
With respect to claim 10, Mowry discloses the controller comprises the charge controller (par 70). Mowry discloses the controller “may direct operation of the charge controller”. Since the controller has control over the charge controller, it is permissible to interpret the former as “comprising” the latter.
Further, the boundaries of the “controller” are not structural. The functionality of the two parts (controller, charge controller) are explicitly disclosed by the prior art – making the boundary of one controller to encompass the other is simply a label as to what a person wants to consider as the “controller”. Looking at Mowry figure 24, making the box around controller 2404 larger so that it also includes 2403 is not a structural modification – it is simply a label that does not affect the functionality of either controller.
With respect to claims 11-13, Mowry, Chatterjee and Meeker combine to discloses a power supply network (all of the citations from the art rejection of claim 1 are incorporated here), and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1-3, respectively. Mowry further discloses (figure 1; par 63-78) the network comprising:
a plurality of power sources (114, 115, 116);
a power bus (bus connecting the outputs of 107);
a communication bus (the external communication link shown in figure 24); and
a plurality of power control systems coupled to the power bus and the communication bus, each power control system comprising the structure recited in claims 1 and 3, respectively.
Chatterjee also discloses the network comprises a plurality of sources (101n), a power bus (between 105a-105b), a communication bus (113) and a plurality of control systems (107n).
With respect to claim 14, Mowry discloses the network comprises a plurality of synchronization circuits (fig 6, items 630, 632, 634) corresponding to the plurality of power control systems that are configured to synchronize the plurality of corresponding internal AC signals with the external AC signal (via lines 640; par 98).
With respect to claim 15, Mowry discloses the plurality of control systems comprise a first power control system (fig 1, top) and a second power control system (fig 2, middle), and wherein the first power control system is configured to receive at least one of the external AC signal (fig 6, via 640), an internal AC signal of the second power control system before synchronization from the second power control system, or the internal AC signal of the second power control system after synchronization to the power bus from the second power control system, and further configured to perform synchronization of the internal AC signal of the first power control system based on the received at least one AC signal (par 97-98).
With respect to claim 16, Mowry discloses a reference power line (fig 5, item 536; par 91-93) between the first power control system and the second power control system, wherein the first power control system is configured to receive the internal AC signal of the second power control system before synchronization on the reference power line.
As noted above, “configured to receive” is not dependent on the content of the information.
With respect to claim 17, Mowry discloses the power supply network is configured to be coupled to another power supply network. There are several ways to interpret this.
First, the Mowry network (figure 1) is made up of electrical conductors. These conductors are obviously “configured to be coupled” to any other conductors. This includes the conductors of other (unclaimed) networks.
Second, the Mowry network is connected to a grid (112-113). This grid is obviously configured to be coupled to other networks.
Third, Mowry discloses a plurality of sources (par 76). Any two can be grouped as a first network while another two are grouped as a second network. Figure 1 shows how these two networks are connected.
It is unclear what narrowing limitations the Applicants intend to include in claim 17. If there is a specific structural limitation that gives the network the ability to easily attach or plug into a second network, then the Applicants may consider defining that structure. The broad recitation of “configured to be coupled” is not effectively to indicate any structure that would be distinguished over the common ability of one conductor to be connected to another.
With respect to claims 18-20, Mowry, Chatterjee and Meeker combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited functionality and that the apparatus is autonomous (i.e. conducted by a controller reading stored instructions because no human intervention is necessary), as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 1-3, respectively. The references are analogous, as discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836