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 .
Prelim. Amdt./Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the Preliminary Amendment filed on October 10, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1: Please substitute “processing circuitry” with –a processing circuitry—
Claim 1, line 3, and claim 8, line 2: Please clarify what “it” is referring. The examiner will interpret the “it” as --the processing circuitry --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please substitute “a base state 2” with –a base station 2—in paragraph 0033.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US 2022/0376507).
Re claim 1: Inoue teaches a storage battery control device (100) comprising processing circuitry (120) configured to perform at least one of first control and second control when the processing circuitry (120) is detected that a charging/discharging criterion for responding to a demand response (DR) request is not satisfied after one or more storage batteries have been determined as a control object of charging/discharging for responding to the DR request (i.e., the control target of the secondary batteries (A_1 to A_K) have an insufficient charging amount, paragraph 0068)), wherein the first control utilizes a storage battery other than the control object (i.e., charging secondary batteries 1 to N)(see figs 1-4; paragraphs 0060-0074).
Re claim 7: Wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the criterion is satisfied through the first control and performs control based on a result of determination (i.e., charging the amount of power from the secondary batteries 1 to N, paragraph 0068).
Re claim 10: Wherein the processing circuitry selects a storage battery satisfying the criterion out of all the storage batteries responding to the DR request through at least one of the first control (paragraphs 0068-0070)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of prior art teaches the second control utilizes a storage battery with a surplus charging/discharging capacity after responding to the DR request out of the storage batteries which are the control object in a period in which utilization of the storage battery is not scheduled in a period in which the DR request is responded to, and the processing circuitry performs the second control with higher priority to the first control as set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamaguchi et al. (US 2016/0105044) and Tomita et al. (US 9520735) teach battery storage systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEUNG H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2401. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/SEUNG H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights