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 Interpretation
The following discussion is provided to help clarify the meaning of Applicant’s claim and disclosure, particularly regarding the functions/capabilities of the controller <14> in relation to the claim recitation: “such that during the transition a rate of power supplied to the building remains constant”. Specific reference is made to portions of Applicant’s corresponding PGPUB: US2025/0337250.
The relevant portions of Applicant’s disclosure relating to the transition operation appear to be corresponding PGPUB: [0021-0025], Figs. 1-4. It can be seen from PGPUB: [0021-0024], Figs. 1-3, that the Controller <14> is described as capable of controlling the amount of power provided by sources <18> and the amount of power provided by a corresponding converter of the Grid <16>. Regarding the amount of power supplied to the home <20> during the transition, PGPUB: [0021-0025], Figs. 1-4 notably does not describe any structure or operation for somehow controlling the amount of power demanded by home <20>, instead it states that during this transition “the home 20 is demanding 10 KW” and “the home 20 continues to demand 10 kW”. There is no disclosure or suggestion that the Controller <14> is somehow controlling/limiting the amount of power the home <20> demands, rather one of ordinary skill would understand the disclosure as describing how the AC controller <14> ensures the grid and sources are providing the current demanded amount of power, which in the example remains at 10kW. One of ordinary skill would also generally recognize that in reality, the power demanded by a home may fluctuate based on loads/appliances turning on/off based on a resident’s usage, and that most practical systems recognize that the amount of power demanded by a home is rarely constant. One of ordinary skill would understand Applicant’s PGPUB: [0021-0025], Figs. 1-4 as disclosing an example situation and operation where the home demands a constant 10kW, likely for convenience of discussion of how Grid and sources are controlled to meet the total demand, but does not disclose the controller <14> somehow actively controlling the amount of power demanded by home <20>.
It is further noted that the disclosure specifically discussing details of the operation for the transition in PGPUB: [0021-0025], Figs. 1-4 also never explicitly describes the home power supply as “constant” or fixed in any way, and that the only portions of the Specification using such language to describe power supplied to the building appears to be PGPUB: [0005-0007] which are merely duplicates of the claims. It is noted that PGPUB: [0026], Fig. 5 discloses how the controller <14> may command the grid <16> interfaced converter such that amount of power from the grid <16> is constant, but this disclosure should not be confused with any ability to ensure that the home <20> power demand itself is constant in any of the described scenarios.
In light of Applicant’s Specification/Drawings and general knowledge of those of skill in the art, the most accurate interpretation of the claim limitation: “such that during the transition a rate of power supplied to the building remains constant” or similar, is therefore almost coincidental, in that there may be times where the building so happens to have a constant power requirement during transitioning of power source supply and the grid/sources controlled to meet this power requirement would thereby be constant at such times. Any attempt to interpret or amend the claim limitation as requiring the controller to somehow actively control/regulate the amount of power demanded/drawn by the building to be constant would be inaccurate and also would likely raise issues under 35 USC 112(a) because there is no supporting disclosure of any structures or capability for the controller <14> to be able to somehow control how much power the building is demanding. See also response to arguments below regarding discussion of further features the disclosure would support however.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US2019/0052120) in view of Worku (US2021/0075221).
Re claim 1. Huang teaches an energy management system (see Huang: Figs. 1, 3-14) comprising:
circuitry (see Huang: [0041-0043], Fig. 1 regarding circuitry interconnecting sources and the air conditioning load for selective power flow control) arranged to selectively transfer power between a grid (public power grid, see Huang: [0041], [0043], Fig. 1), a plurality of power sources (energy storage device <12>, photovoltaic power generation device <11>, see Huang: [0041], [0043], Fig. 1), and a building (air conditioning unit <10>, see Huang: [0041], Fig. 1; see discussion below regarding obviousness of applying to a building); and
a controller (energy scheduling and management device <15>, see Huang: [0042], [0080], Fig. 1) programmed to transition from supply of power from the grid to the building (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0064], [0069], Figs. 8, 14 regarding controlling between states including where grid supplies the air conditioning load) to supply of power from one of the power sources to the building (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0045], [0058], [0062], Figs. 6, 13, regarding controlling between states including where energy storage supplies load), and after the transition to satisfy demand for power from the building via more than the one of the power sources (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0067], Fig. 12, regarding controlling between states including where photovoltaic and energy storage supply load together; note that it is understood or implied that the state of Fig. 12 may occur after the state of Fig. 6 based on the changing generation status of the photovoltaic device as would be understood by those of ordinary skill, see Huang: [0051], [0062], [0067], Figs. 6, 12). See Huang: [0041-0043], [0045], [0056-0070], Figs. 1, 3-14.
Huang does not explicitly state that the air conditioning unit is for a building, but Official Notice was previously taken and hereby made of record that it is very well-known in the art of grid power distribution systems that air conditioning systems may be one of the electrical loads of a building requiring power supply from various available sources. Likewise, it is also well-known that power source selection and managing of power supply to loads may be more generally applied to loads of a building. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/design the system of Huang such that the air conditioning unit is part of a building or included with building loads as recited for purposes of providing known and desirable application of air conditioning for controlling temperature of customer buildings or predictably applying the power source selection and management control of Huang to more generally loads of a building. See also the other cited prior art of record for examples.
Huang does not explicitly discuss the rate of power consumed by the load across the different states and that it remains constant during operation. One of ordinary skill, however, would generally understand that power loads during operation may have time periods where their power consumption is relatively constant depending on usage conditions. Worku, for example, teaches that it is known in multiple-power source systems supplying a system load for the rate of power supplied to the building remains constant including during any power source transitions (see Worku: [0100-0101], Fig. 12, 14-15, 17-18 regarding system control such that a constant 0.5MW is supplied to the load from the combined sources for a given time period). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/design the system of Huang to incorporate the teachings of Worku such that the system load draws constant power during operation for a time period for purposes of predictably adapting the system to supply loads which may require relatively constant power for a time period during their operation via available or desirable power sources (see Worku: [0100-0101], Figs. 12, 14-15, 17-18). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that the combination of Huang, which transitions between different states while meeting required load power via combination of available or preferred power sources, and Worku, which teaches that the load may generally require constant power during operation met by combination of power sources, would suggest the system capable of operating such that the supply of power to the load is constant across the transitions (see discussion of Huang above and Huang: [0056-0070], Figs. 1, 3-14 regarding maintaining operation of air conditioner while changing modes, including possibly from grid supply to energy storage supply modes; see Worku: [0100-0101], Fig. 14-15 regarding how ensuring load receives its constant power requirement when grid disconnected or no longer supply power has the drop in grid power offset by increase in power from source that would take over powering load). Additionally, the combination of Huang and Worku also suggests that a rate power supplied by the one of the power sources decreases when changing from supply of only the energy storage to a combination of the photovoltaic device and energy storage since the load power may remain constant while the power supply is met initially by only the energy storage and then subsequently by both photovoltaic and energy storage (i.e. see discussion of Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0067], Fig. 12, above regarding entering mode where photovoltaic and energy storage supply load together, resulting in energy storage contributes less than the total set load power if load required constant power as shown by Worku: [0100-0101], Figs. 12, 14-15, 17-18).
Re claim 4. Huang in view of Worku teaches the energy management system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to, responsive to excess power generated by another of the power sources (photovoltaic power generation device <11>) exceeding the demand for power from the building, transfer the excess power to the one of the power sources for storage (see Huang: [0065], Fig. 9 regarding photovoltaic device generating more than required by load and excess stored in energy storage device).
Re claim 6. Huang in view of Worku teaches the energy management system of claim 1, wherein the power sources include an electric vehicle, a solar panel, or a battery (energy storage <12> or photovoltaic power generation device <11>, see Huang: [0041], [0046], [0050], Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US2019/0052120) in view of Worku (US2021/0075221), as applied respectively above, further in view of Reineccius (US2010/0327800).
Re claim 2-3. Huang in view of Worku teaches the energy management system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further programmed to satisfy the demand for power from the building via the grid and the power sources (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0067], Fig. 11 regarding load supply using grid and photovoltaic source generally), but does not explicitly describe control strategy to control the relative amounts of power provided by each source to keep grid power draw constant while the load changes. Reineccius, however, teaches that it is known in the art of power supply systems using variable renewable energy sources, energy storage, and grid power to supply a load to provide control mode such that as the demand for power from the building changes, a rate of power supplied by the grid to the building remains constant and greater than zero; wherein the controller is further programmed to satisfy the demand for power from the building via the grid and the power sources such that as the demand for power from the building changes, a rate of power supplied by the power sources to the building changes (see Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13 regarding control to create a flat apparent load to the utility grid, i.e. constant rate of power supplied by grid, by control of energy storage device charge/discharge rate to level fluctuations in the load and variable power source supply rate). 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 system of Huang in view of Worku to further incorporate the teachings of Reineccius by including control of the energy storage, solar power source, and grid power supply rates to create constant grid power draw while meeting changing load demand as recited for purposes of providing power resource management control that creates more stable demand levels for the electric grid utility provider with reduced peak demand, provide more effective utilization of variable generation amounts from local renewable energy resources, and reduce the necessary battery capacity of the facility (see Reineccius: [0116-0118], Figs. 12-13).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US2019/0052120) in view of Worku (US2021/0075221), as applied respectively above, further in view of King (US2017/0168516).
Re claim 5. Huang in view of Worku teaches the energy management system of claim 1, and discloses one of the power sources is an energy storage device (see Huang: [0041], Fig. 1) but does not explicitly discuss use of an electric vehicle’s power source. Vehicle-to-grid systems allowing electric vehicle energy storage to supply power back to residences or the grid are very well-known in the art however. King, for example, teaches that it is known in the art of building power supply systems having controlled power supply from multiple sources for one of the power sources to be an electric vehicle’s energy storage (see King: [0034], [0041-0042], Fig. 1 regarding using a vehicle energy storage as controllable energy source with building loads and other sources). 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 system of Huang in view of Worku to incorporate the teachings of King by substituting or supplementing the energy storage device of Huang with a vehicle energy storage device as suggested by King for purposes of providing known, equivalent energy storage device predictably capable of storing and providing power with building loads (see King: [0034], [0041-0042], Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 7-8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reineccius (US2010/0327800) in view of Huang (US2019/0052120), further in view of Worku (US2021/0075221).
Re claim 7. Reineccius teaches a method (see Reineccius: Figs. 3, 12-13) comprising: commanding a grid (electricity provider, see Reineccius: [0031], Fig. 3) and at least one of a plurality of power sources (ESUs and variable generators, see Reineccius: [0038], [0075], Fig. 3) to concurrently satisfy demand for power from a building (building loads, see Reineccius: [0032], Fig. 3) such that as the demand for power from the building changes, a rate of power supplied by the grid to the building remains constant and greater than zero (see Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13 regarding control to create a flat apparent load to the utility grid, i.e. constant rate of power supplied by grid, by control of energy storage device charge/discharge rate to level fluctuations in the building load and variable power source supply rate). See Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13.
Reineccius does not explicitly discuss control to transition between different supply modes, and also that the building load may be constant at times. Huang, however, teaches that it is known in the art of power distribution systems using energy storage, variable/solar power source, and grid to meet load demand for the system to further include control for transitioning from supply of power from the grid to the building (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0064], [0069], Figs. 8, 14 regarding controlling between states including where grid supplies the air conditioning load) to supply of power from one of the power sources to the building (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0045], [0058], [0062], Figs. 6, 13, regarding controlling between states including where energy storage supplies load); further comprising after the transition, satisfying demand for power from the building via more than the one of the power sources (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0067], Fig. 12, regarding controlling between states including where photovoltaic and energy storage supply load together; note that it is understood or implied that the state of Fig. 12 may occur after the state of Fig. 6 based on the changing generation status of the photovoltaic device as would be understood by those of ordinary skill, see Huang: [0051], [0062], [0067], Figs. 6, 12). Additionally, Worku further teaches that it is known in multiple power source systems supply a system load for the rate of power supplied to the building to remain constant including during any power source transitions (see Worku: [0100-0101], Fig. 12, 14, 17-18 regarding system control such that a constant 0.5MW is supplied to the load from the combined sources for a given time period). 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 system of Reineccius to incorporate the teachings of Huang and Worku to include further control to transition between different preferred or available power supply sources with constant building load power for purposes of predictably enabling the system to select and prioritize between different power sources based on user preference or availability/unavailability of the source and ability to meet load power requirements (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0045], [0058], [0062], [0064], [0069]) and for purposes of predictably adapting the system to supply loads which may require relatively constant power for a time period during their operation via available or desirable power sources (see Worku: [0100-0101], Figs. 12, 14, 17-18). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that the combination of Reineccius, Huang, and Worku would suggest the system capable of operating such that the supply of power to the load is constant across the transitions given the load requires constant power for a period and that the combination of power sources always meeting the demanded power. Additionally, the combination also suggests that a rate power supplied by the one of the power sources decreases when changing from supply of only the energy storage to a combination of the photovoltaic device and energy storage since the load power may remain constant while the power supply is met initially by only the energy storage and then subsequently by both photovoltaic and energy storage (i.e. energy storage contributes less than the total constant load power). See also discussion of claims 2-3 above regarding essentially the same combination of limitations.
Re claim 8. Reineccius in view of Huang, further in view of Worku, teaches the method of claim 7 further comprising commanding the grid and the at least one of the plurality of power sources to concurrently satisfy the demand for power from the budling such that as the demand for power from the building changes, a rate of power supplied by the at least one of the power sources to the building changes (see Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13 regarding control to create a flat apparent load to the utility grid, i.e. constant rate of power supplied by grid, by changing energy storage device charge/discharge power rate to level fluctuations in the load together with variable power source supply rate).
Re claim 11. Reineccius in view of Huang, further in view of Worku, teaches the method of claim 7 further comprising, responsive to excess power generated by another of the power sources exceeding the demand for power from the building, transferring the excess power to the one of the power sources for storage (see Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13 regarding control of energy storage device to charge power when premise power load offset by variable generation is below desired limit load, i.e. variable power generation exceeds building demand together with grid supply).
Re claim 12. Reineccius in view of Huang, further in view of Worku, teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the power sources include an electric vehicle, a solar panel, or a battery (ESU battery or variable photovoltaic generator, see Reineccius: [0038], [0075], Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 13-14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reineccius (US2010/0327800) in view of King (US2017/0168516), further in view of Huang (US2019/0052120), further in view of Worku (US2021/0075221).
Re claim 13. Reineccius teaches an energy management control system (see Reineccius: Figs. 3, 12-13) comprising: a controller (SMP processor/controller, see Reineccius: [0006], [0077-0078], Fig. 3) programmed to satisfy demand for power from a building (building loads, see Reineccius: [0032], Fig. 3) via a grid (electricity provider, see Reineccius: [0031], Fig. 3) and an energy storage device (ESUs, see Reineccius: [0038], Fig. 3) such that as the demand for power from the building changes, a rate of power supplied by the grid to the building remains constant and greater than zero (see Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13 regarding control to create a flat apparent load to the utility grid, i.e. constant rate of power supplied by grid, by control of energy storage device charge/discharge rate to level fluctuations in the building load and variable power source supply rate). See Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13.
Although Reineccius generally discloses use of a building’s available energy storage (see Reineccius: [0038], Fig. 3), Reineccius does not explicitly discuss use of an electric vehicle’s power source. Vehicle-to-grid systems allowing electric vehicle energy storage to supply power back to residences or the grid are very well-known in the art however. King, for example, teaches that it is known in the art of building power supply systems having controlled power supply from multiple sources for one of the power sources to be an electric vehicle’s energy storage (see King: [0034], [0041-0042], Fig. 1 regarding using a vehicle energy storage as controllable energy source with building loads and other sources). 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 system of Reineccius to incorporate the teachings of King by substituting or supplementing the energy storage device/ESUs of Reineccius with a vehicle energy storage device as suggested by King for purposes of providing known, equivalent energy storage device predictably capable of storing and providing power with building loads (see King: [0034], [0041-0042], Fig. 1).
Reineccius in view of King does not explicitly discuss control to transition between different supply modes, and also that the building load may be constant at times. Huang, however, teaches that it is known in the art of power distribution systems using energy storage, variable/solar power source, and grid to meet load demand for the system to further include control for transitioning from supply of power from the grid to the building (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0064], [0069], Figs. 8, 14 regarding controlling between states including where grid supplies the air conditioning load) to supply of power from one of the power sources to the building (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0045], [0058], [0062], Figs. 6, 13, regarding controlling between states including where energy storage supplies load); further comprising after the transition, satisfying demand for power from the building via more than the one of the power sources (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0058], [0067], Fig. 12, regarding controlling between states including where photovoltaic and energy storage supply load together; note that it is understood or implied that the state of Fig. 12 may occur after the state of Fig. 6 based on the changing generation status of the photovoltaic device as would be understood by those of ordinary skill, see Huang: [0051], [0062], [0067], Figs. 6, 12). Additionally, Worku further teaches that it is known in multiple power source systems supply a system load for the rate of power supplied to the building to remain constant including during any power source transitions (see Worku: [0100-0101], Fig. 12, 14, 17-18 regarding system control such that a constant 0.5MW is supplied to the load from the combined sources for a given time period). 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 system of Reineccius in view of King to further incorporate the teachings of Huang and Worku to include further control to transition between different preferred or available power supply sources with constant building load power for purposes of predictably enabling the system to select and prioritize between different power sources based on user preference or availability/unavailability of the source and ability to meet load power requirements (see Huang: [0041-0043], [0045], [0058], [0062], [0064], [0069]) and for purposes of predictably adapting the system to supply loads which may require relatively constant power for a time period during their operation via available or desirable power sources (see Worku: [0100-0101], Figs. 12, 14, 17-18). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that the combination of Reineccius, King, Huang, and Worku would suggest the system capable of operating such that the supply of power to the load is constant across the transitions given the load requires constant power for a period and that the combination of power sources always meeting the demanded power. Additionally, the combination also suggests that a rate power supplied by the one of the power sources decreases when changing from supply of only the energy storage to a combination of the photovoltaic device and energy storage since the load power may remain constant while the power supply is met initially by only the energy storage and then subsequently by both photovoltaic and energy storage (i.e. energy storage contributes less than the total constant load power). Note obviousness of the energy storage being on an electric vehicle as discussed with respect to claim 13. See also discussion of claims 2-3 above regarding similar combination of limitations.
Re claim 14. Reineccius in view of King, further in view of Huang, further in view of Worku, teaches the energy management control system of claim 13 wherein the controller is further programmed to satisfy the demand for power from the building via the grid and the electric vehicle such that as the demand for power from the building changes, a rate of power supplied by the electric vehicle to the building changes (see Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13 regarding control to create a flat apparent load to the utility grid, i.e. constant rate of power supplied by grid, by changing energy storage device charge/discharge power rate to level fluctuations in the load together with variable power source supply rate).
Re claim 17. Reineccius in view of King, further in view of Huang, further in view of Worku, teaches the energy management control system of claim 16, wherein the controller is further programmed to store excess power generated by the other of the power sources to the electric vehicle (see Reineccius: [0062-0063], [0077], [0095], [0110], [0113-0118], Figs. 3, 12-13 regarding control of energy storage device to charge power when premise power load offset by variable generation is below desired limit load, i.e. variable power generation exceeds building demand together with grid supply; see also King: [0042] regarding excess renewable energy stored in vehicle energy storage).
Re claim 18. Reineccius in view of King, further in view of Huang, further in view of Worku, teaches the energy management control system of claim 16, wherein the other power sources include a solar panel or a battery (variable photovoltaic generator, see Reineccius: [0075], Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s allegation that the rejection “conflates the claimed controller-driven transition behavior with the general notion that a building load may remain constant for a period of time”, see the Claim Interpretation section above regarding detailed discussion of Applicant’s own Specification/Drawings relating to the claimed limitation. As discussed above, Applicant’s own Specification would actually suggest to those of ordinary skill that the limitation of power to the building “remains constant” is actually at best disclosed as an example or coincidental for purposes of discussion in the Specification/Drawings (though those of ordinary skill would likely not consider it a realistic assumption for a building as discussed above). The only active control in the disclosure is over the power sources to meet the required demand, which in Applicant’s example Figures remains at 10kW, and there is no supporting disclosure suggesting there is any active control somehow limiting the building power demand/draw to be constant at 10kW. Applicant’s remarks would appear to be what is actually conflating the Specification’s discussion of active control of power sources to meet building demand with the happenstance condition that power demanded and thus supplied to the building remains constant in the example.
In light of this understanding of Applicant’s disclosure, Huang and Worku would therefore appear to remain sufficient to teach the claimed limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation in the manner previously discussed. As previously discussed, Huang discloses a system which is capable of transitioning between any of the different modes where one or more sources maintains power supply to the load, while Worku shows known example of a load drawing constant power and how ensuring such load receives its constant power requirement results in corresponding decreases/increases in the grid/other power sources power contributions. This reasoning which does arise from the assumption of a fixed building demand, would appear to be more accurate to what Applicant’s Specification/Drawings support than the controller somehow ensuring constant rate of power to the building, which Applicant appears to currently be arguing. Interpreting or amending the claims to require the controller as actively ensuring constant power draw by the building would be unsupported and likely raise issues under 35 USC 112(a).
Regarding Applicant’s further remarks that Huang does not disclose a sequential progression, see prior art rejection above regarding disclosure of changing between respective modes with grid and one or more sources according to corresponding conditions (with constant power/decreasing power contribution for the reasons discussed above). As currently drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not recite or require any particular conditions for when the transition occurs or why it moves to one or more sources. The claim does not limit when/why the transition to a particular source occurs or specify the condition of other ones of the plurality of sources, e.g. if they are available/unavailable to supply power, nor does it specify any additional control technique for commanding gradual reduction/increase of amount of power from the grid/sources.
Regarding Applicant’s further remarks that Worku’s control somehow teaches away from a sequential approach supported only by one source, see prior art rejection above regarding combination with Huang’s system. As discussed, Worku suggests example constant power load requirement, and also discloses a variety of examples of how in a multi-source system the constant power requirement would be met with a decrease in one source balanced by an increase in another source, including scenarios where the grid stops providing power altogether. One of ordinary skill would appreciate the teachings and examples of Worku as they may be applied to systems such as Huang’s which may have specific desired modes and sources supplying power in each mode. There appears to be no disclosure that would actually teach away or even discourage from the recited combination, and Applicant’s generalization of the system of Worku rather than the noted relevant teachings and examples do not appear to constitute sufficient grounds that the reference teaches away from the claimed combination. It is also noted that under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not actually require that “only” one source of the plurality of sources is supplying power during/after the transition.
The same reasoning is similarly applied to other independent claims and dependent claims, which Applicant does not appear to comment further on.
It is recommended that Applicant review their Specification/Drawings, and consider amending the claims to include further supported details of the transition operation if wishing to distinguish from the current cited prior art of record. Although the claims as currently drafted remain broad regarding how the controller actually controls the elements during the transition, further details appear to be found in the Specification/Drawings which may differ from cited prior art of record. Of note, Applicant could consider further specifying that during the transition, the controller commanding an interfacing converter of the grid to gradually decrease power provided from the grid to the building to zero while commanding only one of the plurality of power sources to gradually increase power provided to the building to an amount of power demanded by the building, such that a rate of power supplied to the building remains constant/meets amount of power demanded by the building throughout the transition.
Applicant may also contact the examiner to discuss possible amendments or the office action as appropriate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-7265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DAVID A SHIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836