DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-16 have been 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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the managing of the power contribution comprises to: determine” and “comprises to: extract…and combine” are grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 2 as follows:
“wherein the managing of the power contribution comprises:
determining current load levels or expected load levels of the plurality of end devices on the DC network, wherein the determining of the current load levels or the expected load levels comprises:
extracting load values from a plurality of load identifiers associated with the plurality of end devices; and
combining the load values to obtain the current load levels or the expected load levels;”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 2-5, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al (NPL: “Dynamic Modeling and Control of a Grid-Connected Hybrid Generation system with Versatile Power Transfer”) in view of Shaw et al (NPL: “Nonintrusive Load Monitoring and Diagnostics in Power Systems”)
For claim 2, Kim teaches an energy provisioning system (Figures 1, 2 and 20-21), comprising:
a DC network including a plurality of end devices (Loads);
one or more solar panels (PV);
one or more DC/DC voltage regulators connected to the DC network (DC/DC);
an energy storage connected to the DC network (battery), wherein the energy storage is charged by the one or more solar panels (§II), wherein the DC network is connected to a module comprising an inverter or an AC/DC converter (DC/AC); and
a microcontroller (plurality of TMS320C32 and remote PC, §V) configured to manage power contribution from one or more of the energy storage, the one or more solar panels, or an AC mains supply (as understood by examination of Figures 2 and 20-21).
It is noted that Kim teaches “the supervisory-control system is the combination of a personal computer for remote control, its system-operation software, and communication network with the local controllers. The supervisory system monitors the entire hybrid system and coordinates power generation of the individual energy sources…A supervisory-control system monitors parameters of the local controllers and transfers control directions to them according to the mode selected by an operator. Supervisory-control strategies in three possible modes of operation are as follows.
1) Mode I—normal operation: The hybrid system transfers as much power into the grid as the PV array and the wind-turbine can generate…
2) Mode II—dispatch operation: The supervisory control sets the desired power injection to the grid…
3) Mode III—averaging operation: The purpose of this mode is to smooth the power fluctuation of the renewable energy sources and transfer more stable power into the grid…”, §II - IIIA
Kim fails to teach the method steps for the microcontroller as claimed.
However, Shaw teaches a nonintrusive load monitor (NILM) that:
“can determine the operating schedule of the operating electrical loads in a target system strictly from measurements that are made at a central point in an electric power distribution system”, §I
“can disaggregate and report the operation of individual electrical loads like lights and motors from measurements that are made only at the electrical service entry to a building…The NILM is capable of performing this disaggregation, even when many loads are operating at the same time”, §I
“can also monitor the operation of the electrical distribution system itself, identifying situations where two or more otherwise healthy loads interfere with each other’s operation through voltage waveform distortion or power quality problems”, §I
Shaw’s NILM is implemented using current and voltage sensors and an internet connected network, §II.
Furthermore, based on a library of load transient signatures, different classes of loads can be identified, §II-B.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Shaw’s NILM with Kim’s electrical loads in order to:
determine an expected demand based on the operating schedule for said loads such that an operator can better select which mode of operation to use, and
provide an operator with real-time demand data from individual loads.
The combination of Kim and Shaw as cited above teaches:
wherein the managing of the power contribution comprises:
determining current load levels or expected load levels (expected demand based on determined operating schedule, Shaw) of the plurality of end devices on the DC network (via NILM, Shaw), wherein the determining of the current load levels or the expected load levels comprises:
extracting load values from a plurality of load identifiers associated with the plurality of end devices (load transient signatures or operation schedules, Shaw); and
combining the load values to obtain the current load levels or the expected load levels (“monitor the operation of the electrical distribution system itself”, Shaw).
For claim 3, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Kim further teaches:
a connection with the AC mains supply (Grid, Figure 1).
For claim 4, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Kim further teaches:
the microcontroller is further configured to provision power from the one or more solar panels based at least in part on determining that the one or more solar panels are sufficient for one or more loads (“when the renewable sources generated more than the dispatched power, the battery operated in charging mode. When the wind and solar generation became less than the grid injection, the battery turned to discharging mode”, §IV-B).
For claim 5, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Kim further teaches:
the microcontroller is further configured to provision power from the energy storage based at least in part on an energy storage level (“when the renewable sources generated more than the dispatched power, the battery operated in charging mode. When the wind and solar generation became less than the grid injection, the battery turned to discharging mode”, §IV-B).
For claim 9, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Kim further teaches:
a microcontrolled switch controlled by the microcontroller (at least one of the switches within the DC/DC converter, PWM converter, grid connection inverter, Figures 3 and 21).
For claim 10, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Kim further teaches:
a current sensor configured to measure at least one of current or intermittency of the one or more solar panels (Kim’s PV converter comprises a current controller, controlling a current inherently requires sensing a current; see Appendix).
For claim 11, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Kim further teaches:
the one or more DC/DC voltage regulators comprise Buck-Boost voltage regulators (§II).
For claim 13, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Shaw further teaches:
at least one load sensor (current and voltage sensors, §II).
For claim 14, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 but fails to teach a fuse box or smart meter as claimed.
However, a fuse box and/or smart meter are not required to be part of the energy provisioning system of claims 1, 13 or 14 and thus cannot be used to distinguish over the prior art. Furthermore, Shaw’s load sensor is capable of being located at a fuse box or smart meter.
Note MPEP section 2114 which indicates that "the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art" (emphasis added). Applicant should also note the holdings in In re Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987); In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (1997); In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (1971); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (1967); In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528 (1959); and Hewlewtt-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, 15 USPQ 1525 (1990). Each of these cases has held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the apparatus of the prior art to be patentable, and that the claimed manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used or operated cannot be relied upon for patentability. Moreover, it has been long held that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Shaw and Patel (US 2006/0214510).
For claim 12, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 but fails to teach a wireless communications interface or a powerline communications interface as claimed.
It is noted that Kim teaches a communication network (§II) and Shaw teaches a gateway to the Internet (§II) including “Internet interfaces that make the results of event classification available on the Web.”
Patel teaches an intelligent DC power supply (Figure 2) wherein information is communicated between the power supply and an electronic device (140) using a power line communication protocol ([0029]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to convey information within Kim’s communication network at least in part using a power line communication protocol since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
For claim 15, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 but fails to teach a circuit breaker comprising an embedded sensor as claimed.
However, Patel teaches power management electrics 116 including circuit breakers to prevent power surges. Note that a circuit breaker senses overcurrent and can thus be considered an embedded sensor.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use circuit breakers within Kim’s power system (Figure 1) in order to prevent power surges from damaging load devices.
Furthermore, the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Patel.
For claim 16, Kim in view of Shaw and Patel as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 15 and Patel further teaches:
the circuit breaker comprising the embedded sensor is configured to perform at least one of measuring a load (measuring overcurrent) or placing a reference signal onto a circuit (supplying a filtered voltage to an electronic component, [0024]).
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Shaw and Hakim et al (US 2008/0114499).
For claim 6, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 but fails to teach provisioning power from the AC mains supply based on power unit cost.
However, Hakim teaches that when grid power is interrupted, a battery backup and photovoltaics can be used to shift demand from times of high cost to times of low cost, thereby mitigating demand charges based on peak consumption ([0028]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kim’s microcontroller such that when solar and wind cannot meet demand, to use battery power during times of high cost and use AC mains power during times of low cost in order to save money.
For claim 7, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 but fails to teach provisioning power from the AC mains supply based at least in part on an energy storage level.
However, Hakim teaches that when grid power is interrupted, a battery backup and photovoltaics can be used to shift demand from times of high cost to times of low cost, thereby mitigating demand charges based on peak consumption ([0028]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kim’s microcontroller such that when solar and wind cannot meet demand, to use battery power and when battery power is depleted use AC mains power in order to save money.
For claim 8, Kim in view of Shaw as defined above teaches the limitations of claim 2 but fails to teach the microcontroller is further configured to combine or replace power provided by the one or more solar panels with power provided by the energy storage or the AC mains supply.
However, Hakim teaches that when grid power is interrupted, a battery backup and photovoltaics can be used to shift demand from times of high cost to times of low cost, thereby mitigating demand charges based on peak consumption ([0028]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kim’s microcontroller such that when solar and wind cannot meet demand, to use battery power and when battery power is depleted use AC mains power in order to save money.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CALRISSIAN PUENTES whose telephone number is (571)270-5070. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 (flex).
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/DANIEL C PUENTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights