DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art [AAPA], in view of Mantooth et al., US Patent no. 11,693,376 [Mantooth].
Regarding claim 1, AAPA discloses a method for controlling an inverter in an energy plant coupled to an electric power grid or operating in an islanded mode, the method comprising using an inverter control system communicatively coupled to the inverter, receiving one or more command messages for controlling the inverter [a PV power plant includes inverters that include inverter control systems that receive commands from PV supervisory control system over a power plant communication network, paragraphs 0004-0005].
AAPA does not disclose verifying the legitimacy of inverter commands before the implementing the commands. Like AAPA, Mantooth discloses a photovoltaic power plant system that includes green power nodes that include inverters and a central controller for providing commands to the inverters over a network. Mantooth recognizes that it would be advantageous to provide cybersecurity functionality in the green power nodes to protect data on multiple levels [column 17, lines 30-35]. Specifically, Mantooth discloses including a security module in each green power node that analyzes commands sent to the green power node and filters erroneous or malicious commands (i.e. dropping illegitimate commands and transmitting legitimate commands) [column 17, line 62 – column 18, line 17]. In order to differentiate legitimate commands from erroneous or malicious commands, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that determinations of command legitimacies would include at least one of or both of comparison of communications related parameters to legitimate communications related parameters and comparison of value range related parameters with legitimate value ranges. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include command filtering security modules in photovoltaic power plant nodes that include inverters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Mantooth teachings into the AAPA energy plant by including a security module in the inverter control system in order to protect the inverter data and resources from system faults or attacks [Mantooth, column 17, lines 30-35].
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 9, the claims only require a teaching of one of: comparing communications related parameters contained in the command message to predetermined legitimate communications related parameters; comparing value range related parameters contained in the command message to predetermined legitimate value ranges; comparing data received from the inverter with a predetermined functional model of the inverter; and, detecting power, current, or voltage oscillations at the inverter. Claims 2, 8 and 9 further define comparing data received from the inverter with a predetermined functional model of the inverter and detecting power, current, or voltage oscillations at the inverter. In this case, AAPA and Mantooth, as described above, disclose comparing communications related parameters contained in the command message to predetermined legitimate communications related parameters and comparing value range related parameters contained in the command message to predetermined legitimate value ranges. AAPA and Mantooth are not relied on and are not required to disclose comparing data received from the inverter with a predetermined functional model of the inverter and detecting power, current, or voltage oscillations at the inverter. Therefore, claims 2, 8 and 9 are rejected based on the grounds set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Mantooth further discloses that if the command message is not legitimate, reporting that the command message is not legitimate to a plant supervisory control system [a log of data can be reported to aid in the analysis of system faults, attacks or other events, column 18, lines 5-17].
Regarding claim 4, AAPA discloses that one or more command messages are received from a plant supervisory control system [a PV power plant includes inverters that include inverter control systems that receive commands from PV supervisory control system over a power plant communication network, paragraphs 0004-0005].
Regarding claim 5, AAPA further discloses that the plant supervisory control system is communicatively coupled to the inverter control system over a network [a PV power plant includes inverters that include inverter control systems that receive commands from PV supervisory control system over a power plant communication network, paragraphs 0004-0005].
Regarding claim 6, Mantooth further discloses that the plant supervisory control system includes the inverter control system [the security module is part of a supervisory control and data acquisition system that has visibility and control of green smart power nodes, column 17, line 62 – column 18, line 17].
Regarding claim 7, AAPA and Mantooth do not specifically disclose that the determination of erroneous or malicious commands includes analyzing command request frequency information and communication protocol functional codes. Examiner takes official notice that, in control systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, cybersecurity attacks were conventionally detected by observing an unusually high frequency of command requests and that communication/system errors were conventionally detected by observing unexpected or improper communication protocol functional codes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use conventional cybersecurity attack or communication/system detection techniques in the APAA and Mantooth energy plant in order to facilitate the filtering of erroneous or malicious commands.
Regarding claim 10, AAPA further discloses that the energy plant is a renewable energy plant [PV power plant include PV arrays, paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 11, AAPA further discloses that the inverter is coupled to an intermittent energy source. [PV arrays supply DC power to inverters, paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 12, AAPA further discloses that the inverter includes basic, universal, or non-black box controller logic and does not include ISO-specific controller logic thereby allowing for more rapid inverter replacement [inverter controls located inside inverters, paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 13, AAPA and Mantooth does not disclose that the security modules of the green power nodes are implemented using ISO-specific controllers. Examiner takes official notice that ISO was a conventionally used standard to certify the safety and quality of computing devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ISO certified controller in AAPA and Mantooth to implement the security modules in order to ensure quality and reliability.
Regarding claim 14, Mantooth further discloses a control system comprising a processor coupled to memory and an interface to a network and, at least one of hardware and software modules within the memory and controlled or executed by the processor, the modules including computer readable instructions executable by the processor [microcomputer that connected to the Internet, column 12, lines 3-21].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhowmik et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2018/0375336 discloses a photovoltaic inverter system that includes an inverter control system that received commands from a remote operator center.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 January 24, 2026