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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 8, 2025. Claims 1, and 13 have been amended. Claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 have been canceled. Claim 24 has been added. Claims 1-8, and 11-19 are pending and examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed October 8, 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston et al., US 20100094490 A1, in view of Matsuzaki et al., US20160046278A1, hereinafter referred to as Alston, and Matsuzaki, respectively.
As to claim 1, Alston discloses a method for achieving and maintaining constant energy efficiency in an integrated hybrid power system for a marine vessel, the integrated hybrid power system including a plurality of energy storage units and at least one power generator unit coupled with a power distribution grid wherein the power generation and consumer load is independent of each other, the method comprising:
determining, by a power management system of the integrated hybrid power system, whether the consumer load on the power distribution grid is greater than a continuous constant static loading at the most fuel efficient set point of the at least one power generator (Dynamic optimization of power generation system – See at least Abstract; Adjust operating parameter of engine to maximize efficiency based on required electrical power being supplied by the generator – See at least ¶7; Examiner notes optimization includes matching load to maximum, or ideal, efficiency loading. Optimizing power generation includes determining when consumer load diverges from optimal, i.e., “most fuel efficient set point.”);
starting the at least one power generator when at least one of: (i) the consumer load on the power distribution grid remains greater than the continuous constant static loading of the most fuel efficient set point of the at least one power generator; and (ii) a charge level of the energy storage units is below a prescribed lower threshold value (Sensed load characteristics used in dynamic optimization of power generation system – See at least ¶24; Examiner notes optimization includes matching load to maximum, or ideal, efficiency loading. Optimizing power generation includes determining when consumer load diverges from optimal, i.e., “most fuel efficient set point.”);
maintaining, by the power management system, a substantially constant load on the at least one power generator equal to the most fuel efficient set point of the at least one power generator despite fluctuations in consumer load on the power distribution grid when the consumer load on the power distribution grid is greater than the prescribed rated maximum efficiency loading of the at least one power generator (Dynamic optimization of power generation system – See at least Abstract; Examiner notes maintaining a substantially constant load equal to the most fuel efficient set point is synonymous with dynamic optimization.); and
shutting down the at least one power generator when the consumer load on the power distribution grid is predicted to remain less than or equal to the most fuel efficient set point of the at least one power generator and the charge level of the energy storage units is greater than or equal to the prescribed lower threshold value (Generators may be shut off to optimize power generation – See at least ¶75 and Claim 7).
Alston fails to explicitly disclose loading the at least one power generator at a non-linear rate over a prescribed period of time, and reducing a load at a non-linear rate on the at least power generator from the prescribed rated maximum efficiency loading to a prescribed reduced load amount for a prescribed period of time before turning off the at least one power generator. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alston and include the feature of loading the at least one power generator at a non-linear rate over a prescribed period of time, and reducing a load at a non-linear rate on the at least power generator from the prescribed rated maximum efficiency loading to a prescribed reduced load amount for a prescribed period of time before turning off the at least one power generator, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Matsuzaki teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of hybrid vehicle control to load and deload motor generators in a non-linear fashion (Decrease and start of motor assist may be nonlinear – See at least ¶134 and Fig. 6 of Matsuzaki).
Independent claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims are nearly identical but for minor differences.
As to claim 3, Alston discloses the integrated hybrid power system includes at least a second engine-driven power generator (Plurality of generators – See at least Abstract).
Alston fails to explicitly disclose starting the second power generator when the consumer load on the power distribution grid is greater than twice the prescribed rated maximum efficiency loading of the at least one power generator. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alston and include the feature of starting the second power generator when the consumer load on the power distribution grid is greater than twice the prescribed rated maximum efficiency loading of the at least one power generator because Alston discloses the activation and deactivation of additional engine-driven generators based on a variety of load conditions and desired optimal power generation (See at least ¶26-36) because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, i.e. dynamic hybrid power system optimization, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 11, Alston fails to explicitly disclose the prescribed rated maximum efficiency loading is about 85 percent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alston and include the feature of the prescribed rated maximum efficiency loading is about 85 percent because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, i.e. dynamic hybrid power system optimization, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 12, Alston fails to explicitly disclose maintaining the charge level of the energy storage units between about 20 percent and about 90 percent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alston and include the feature of maintaining the charge level of the energy storage units between about 20 percent and about 90 percent because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, i.e. dynamic hybrid power system optimization, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston et al., US 20100094490 A1, in view of Matsuzaki et al., US20160046278A1, as applied above to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Nydal, US 20220177102 A1, hereinafter referred to as Alston, Matsuzaki, and Nydal, respectively.
As to claims 2 and 14, the combination of Alston and Matsuzaki fails to explicitly disclose determining, by at least one sensor in the power management system of the integrated hybrid power system, the charge level of the energy storage units. However, Nydal teaches determining, by at least one sensor in the power management system of the integrated hybrid power system, the charge level of the energy storage units (SOC – See at least ¶2).
Alston discloses controlling a hybrid power system for a marine vessel wherein the hybrid power system comprises conventional hybrid power system components, like an energy storage unit, and the hybrid power system is controlled so as to manage loads and power generation optimally. Matsuzaki teaches exemplary loading and deloading of a motor of a hybrid vehicle. Nydal teaches energy storage unit charge level is a conventional consideration for controlling hybrid power systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alston and Matsuzaki and include the feature of determining, by at least one sensor in the power management system of the integrated hybrid power system, the charge level of the energy storage units, as taught by Nydal, because determining the charge level of an energy storage unit of a hybrid power system is a fundamental consideration for controlling hybrid power systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, and 15-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668