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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a rate limiter coupled to the AFE controller and configured to adjust a rate of change associated with each of the plurality of target control parameters based, at least in part, on the plurality of reference signals, emphasis added, there is no depiction of the rate limiter limiting based on any parameter, as recited in claim 1, and similarly claim 14, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5: Line 2 recites “a second optional rate limiter”. It is unclear if this component needs to be included in the invention as “optional” is ambiguous.
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.
Claims 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korol et al. (“Korol”; US 2023/0409006), in view of Stahlkopf et al. (“Stahlkopf”; US 2011/0115223).
Regarding claim 8: Korol discloses a control system (Fig. 1) for a gravity well (“gravity well” is an intended use), comprising:
a controller (107, 108, 143, 146, 147, Fig. 1);
a plurality of sensors coupled to the controller (105, paragraph 0069 lists a plurality of sensors that are encompassed by “magnetic field sensor”); and
a power control system (PCS) coupled to the controller, the PCS comprising:
an active front end (AFE) component (Fig. 8) configured to communicate with, at least in part, on a plurality of target control parameters and a plurality of reference signals (id_ref, iq_ref), the plurality of target control parameters (id, iq) and the plurality of reference signals generated based on signals from the plurality of sensors (as the current is provided by the sensor); and
a variable-frequency drive (VFD) and configured to store the plurality of target control parameters (Fig. 1, the control parameters are inherently stored in order for the control to be carried out).
Korol does not explicitly disclose an active front end (AFE) component configured to communicate with a grid.
However, Stahlkopf discloses an active front end (AFE) component (6896, Fig. 68) configured to communicate with a grid (6814).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Korol to communicate with the grid, as disclosed by Stahlkopf, in order to utilize a more robust data source in the control.
Regarding claim 9: Korol discloses a sensor, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of sensors includes at least one of a methane sensor, a level sensor, pressure sensor, a tachometer, and a meteorological sensor.
However, Stahlkopf discloses the plurality of sensors includes at least one of a methane sensor, a level sensor, pressure sensor, a tachometer, and a meteorological sensor (in this case a pressure sensor, 1008, paragraph 0276).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensors of Korol to include a pressure sensor, as disclosed by Stahlkopf, in order to use more data points in the control.
Regarding claim 10: Korol disclose the plurality of reference signals comprise at least one of a power reference and a voltage reference (while technically a current refence, the voltage can be easily determined with Ohm’s Law).
Regarding claim 12: Korol discloses the plurality of target control parameters comprises at least one of one or more quadrature current vectors (id, iq), a DC link voltage, one or more target discharge rates, one or more target velocities, and one or more target torque values.
Regarding claim 13: Korol discloses wherein the AFE component is configured to receive or generate at least one of one or more reactive power signals (var_ref) and the VFD is configured to receive one or more speed set point signals (106, Fig. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korol and Stahlkopf, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of vor dem Esche et al. (“vor dem Esche”; US 2015/0311751).
Regarding claim 11: Korol discloses Vref and gravity energy storage devices, but does not explicitly disclose Vref calibrates the AFE component to utilize multiple energy storage devices operating in parallel at the grid.
However, vor dem Esche discloses Vref (via 8, paragraph 0046, Fig. 1) calibrates the AFE component to utilize multiple gravity energy storage devices (2) operating in parallel at the grid (NS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control of Korol to apply to the multiple energy storage devices of von dem Esche in order to allow for control over greater devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the control system of claim 1, specifically comprising:
a rate limiter coupled to the AFE controller and configured to adjust a rate of change associated with each of the plurality of target control parameters based, at least in part, on the plurality of reference signals, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 1.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the method of claim 14, specifically comprising:
adjusting, based at least in part on the plurality of reference signals, a rate of change associated with each of the plurality of target control parameters, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claims 15-20 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights