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 . This action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 filed on 09/02/2026 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Claims 1,4,5 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 entered in amendment filed on 09/02/2026 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added Claim 6 is rejected due to the limitation “wherein the power storage facility comprises a power storage, which includes at least one of a stationary storage battery, a battery of a battery electric vehicle or a battery of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.” Specifically the limitation of “which includes at least one of” indicates the power storage of the claim has the ability to include one or more (emphasis added) of the said “stationary storage battery electric vehicle battery, or a plug in EV battery”. As presented, the power storage can comprise of but not limited to the combination and permutation of:
a singular stationary storage battery
a stationary storage battery AND an electric vehicle battery
an electric vehicle battery AND a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery
a stationary storage battery AND an electric vehicle battery AND a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery
Applicant’s specification paragraph filed on 05/13/2024 (herein, Applicant’s specification) states
“[0035] The power storages 33 are stationary storage batteries, but are not limited to these. The power storage 33 may be a battery electric vehicle (BEV) or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) battery (in-vehicle storage battery).”
The description of the Applicant’s specification illustrates the power storage may comprise a singular (emphasis added) battery electric vehicle OR a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery OR a stationary storage battery.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild et al. (US 11190017 B1, herein Rothschild) in view of Haffaf (Experimental performance analysis of an installed microgrid-based PV/battery/EV grid-connected system, herein Haffaf), and further in view of Al-Issasei et al. (Secondary Control of Microgrid using Multi-Agent Systems, herein Al-Issasei).
Regarding claim 1, Rothschild teaches a control apparatus comprising a controller configured to transmit, to a power storage facility and a power generation facility, instructions to control each of the power storage facility and the power generation facility, the controller being configured to (See FIG.1, power generation facility is interpreted as (135 and 120) in the figure, power storage facility is interpreted as (115) in the figure):
control the power storage facility to charge power at a first adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when planned electrical energy exceeds actual electrical energy (charging power is interpreted as stored [column 7 line 51-53] excess electricity transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 may be stored in the local power storage 115);
control the power generation facility to generate power at a second adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the first adjustment amount exceeds electrical energy that the power storage facility has been controlled to charge ([column 8 line 67- column 9 line 5] when the local power-generating devices 135 in the locale produce more electricity than is currently needed at the plurality of prosumer units 105 and if the local power storage 115 is fully charged, this excess electricity may be transmitted to the regional power grid 120 for utilization in other locales);
control the power generation facility to generate power at a third adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the planned electrical energy is equal to or less than actual electrical energy ([column 10 line 45-53] if the local power source 135 at the prosumer unit is not producing sufficient power output to support the load, the inverter 137 may connect the prosumer unit 105 to the local distribution grid 145 to supplement the prosumer unit 105 with excess locally-generated power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 from another prosumer unit 105, excess locally-generated power stored in the local power storage 115, or regional power supplied from the regional power grid 120);
and control the power storage facility to discharge power at a fourth adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the third adjustment amount exceeds electrical energy that the power generation facility has been controlled to generate ([column 10 line 45-53] if the local power source 135 at the prosumer unit is not producing sufficient power output to support the load, the inverter 137 may connect the prosumer unit 105 to the local distribution grid 145 to supplement the prosumer unit 105 with excess locally-generated power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 from another prosumer unit 105, excess locally-generated power stored in the local power storage 115, or regional power supplied from the regional power grid 120).
Rothschild does not explicitly teach wherein the controls of the controller are prioritized in following order, (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount, (3) the control at the third adjustment amount, and (4) the control at the fourth adjustment amount.
Haffaf teaches a flowchart (see page 609 section 5) for the proposed energy management prioritization.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated on the flowchart, starting at t= 0 the conditions are checked in order.
(2) the control at the second adjustment amount ([see Ppv > Pload & SoC(t) = SoCmax on the flowchart])
(1) the control at the first adjustment amount ([see Ppv > Pload & SoCmin < Soc(t) < SoCmax on the flowchart])
(3) the control at the third adjustment amount ([page 608 section 5] This means that the load is supplied by solar energy with priority.)
And (4) the control at the fourth adjustment amount ([page 608 section 5] If there is not enough PV energy, the battery is used to supplement the remaining load.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Haffaf so as to include the prioritization of battery storage charging, and minimize the battery storage discharge. Doing so would allow optimization of the use of energy. (Haffaf [page 600 introduction right section paragraph 3] advantages of the MG include optimizing energy use, reducing GHG emissions, improving energy quality, reducing energy losses and grid congestion, and increasing energy efficiency.).
Rothschild in view of Haffaf teaches the respective control adjustment amounts and prioritization for the said adjustment amounts but teaches the starting use case having the battery being fully charged. Therefore, while the concept of prioritizing the charging of the battery is taught, since the battery is fully charged in the start case, Rothcshild in view of Haffaf does not explicitly teach the starting case when the battery is not fully charged (e.g. [prioritizing] (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount.).
Al-Issaei teaches [prioritizing] (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount ([page 173 right column paragraph 2] In the first case where an excess power is generated by DGs (Case 1), SoC of the DS is considered as another decision point. In this case, the priority is to charge the battery in DS1; thus, if SoC < 100% (Case 1A), the excess power is sent as a reference signal to the DS. Otherwise, excess power is exported to the main Grid (Case 1B).; The citation is illustrating prioritizing charging the battery (first adjustment amount) over exporting the excess power to the main Grid (second adjustment amount))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Al-Issaei so as to include the prioritization of battery storage charging when there is a surplus. Doing so would allow hierarchical control for the microgrid. (Al-Issaei [page 1 abstract] incorporate communication in a way that allow for the realization of Smart Grids. This concept promises to resolve many of the issues and challenges faced by the increase in the demand of electrical power.).
Regarding claim 4, Rothschild teaches a control method executed by a control apparatus that transmits, to a power storage facility and a power generation facility, instructions to control each of the power storage facility and the power generation facility, the control method comprising (see FIG.4):
calculating a difference between planned electrical energy and actual electrical energy (net usage amounts is difference between planned and actual [column 17 line 20-29] the data may be analyzed for determining net usage amounts of the local distribution grid 145 (e.g., difference between the amount of power received from the regional power grid 120 and the amount of power transmitted to the regional power grid) and the prosumer unit 105 (e.g., difference between amount of power the prosumer unit received from the local distribution grid 145 and the amount of power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145));
controlling the power storage facility to charge power at a first adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the planned electrical energy exceeds the actual electrical energy (charging power is interpreted as stored [column 7 line 51-53] excess electricity transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 may be stored in the local power storage 115);
controlling the power generation facility to generate power at a second adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the first adjustment amount exceeds electrical energy that the power storage facility has been controlled to charge ([column 8 line 67- column 9 line 5] when the local power-generating devices 135 in the locale produce more electricity than is currently needed at the plurality of prosumer units 105 and if the local power storage 115 is fully charged, this excess electricity may be transmitted to the regional power grid 120 for utilization in other locales.);
controlling the power generation facility to generate power at a third adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the planned electrical energy is equal to or less than actual electrical energy ([column 10 line 45-53] if the local power source 135 at the prosumer unit is not producing sufficient power output to support the load, the inverter 137 may connect the prosumer unit 105 to the local distribution grid 145 to supplement the prosumer unit 105 with excess locally-generated power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 from another prosumer unit 105, excess locally-generated power stored in the local power storage 115, or regional power supplied from the regional power grid 120);
and controlling the power storage facility to discharge power at a fourth adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the third adjustment amount exceeds electrical energy that the power generation facility has been controlled to generate ([column 10 line 45-53] if the local power source 135 at the prosumer unit is not producing sufficient power output to support the load, the inverter 137 may connect the prosumer unit 105 to the local distribution grid 145 to supplement the prosumer unit 105 with excess locally-generated power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 from another prosumer unit 105, excess locally-generated power stored in the local power storage 115, or regional power supplied from the regional power grid 120).
Rothschild does not explicitly teach wherein the controls of the controller are prioritized in following order, (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount, (3) the control at the third adjustment amount, and (4) the control at the fourth adjustment amount.
Haffaf teaches a flowchart (see page 609 section 5) for the proposed energy management prioritization.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated on the flowchart, starting at t= 0 the conditions are checked in order.
Haffaf teaches (2) the control at the second adjustment amount ([see Ppv > Pload & SoC(t) = SoCmax on the flowchart])
(1) the control at the first adjustment amount ([see Ppv > Pload & SoCmin < Soc(t) < SoCmax on the flowchart])
(3) the control at the third adjustment amount ([page 608 section 5] This means that the load is supplied by solar energy with priority.)
And (4) the control at the fourth adjustment amount ([page 608 section 5] If there is not enough PV energy, the battery is used to supplement the remaining load.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Haffaf so as to include the prioritization of battery storage charging, and minimize the battery storage discharge. Doing so would allow optimization of the use of energy. (Haffaf [page 600 introduction right section paragraph 3] advantages of the MG include optimizing energy use, reducing GHG emissions, improving energy quality, reducing energy losses and grid congestion, and increasing energy efficiency.).
Rothschild in view of Haffaf teaches the respective control adjustment amounts and prioritization for the said adjustment amounts but teaches the starting use case having the battery being fully charged. Therefore while the concept of prioritizing the charging of the battery is taught, since the battery is fully charged in the start case, Rothcshild in view of Haffaf does not explicitly teach the starting case when the battery is not fully charged (e.g. [prioritizing] (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount.).
Al-Issaei teaches [prioritizing] (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount ([page 173 right column paragraph 2] In the first case where an excess power is generated by DGs (Case 1), SoC of the DS is considered as another decision point. In this case, the priority is to charge the battery in DS1; thus, if SoC < 100% (Case 1A), the excess power is sent as a reference signal to the DS. Otherwise, excess power is exported to the main Grid (Case 1B).; The citation is illustrating prioritizing charging the battery (first adjustment amount) over exporting the excess power to the main Grid (second adjustment amount))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Al-Issaei so as to include the prioritization of battery storage charging when there is a surplus. Doing so would allow hierarchical control for the microgrid. (Al-Issaei [page 1 abstract] incorporate communication in a way that allow for the realization of Smart Grids. This concept promises to resolve many of the issues and challenges faced by the increase in the demand of electrical power.).
Regarding Claim 5, Rothschild teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to be executed by a control apparatus that transmits, to a power storage facility and a power generation facility, instructions to control each of the power storage facility and power generation facility, thereby causing the control apparatus to execute operations, the operations comprising:
calculating a difference between planned electrical energy and actual electrical energy (net usage amounts is difference between planned and actual [column 17 line 20-29] the data may be analyzed for determining net usage amounts of the local distribution grid 145 (e.g., difference between the amount of power received from the regional power grid 120 and the amount of power transmitted to the regional power grid) and the prosumer unit 105 (e.g., difference between amount of power the prosumer unit received from the local distribution grid 145 and the amount of power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145));
controlling the power storage facility to charge power at a first adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the planned electrical energy exceeds the actual electrical energy (charging power is interpreted as stored [column 7 line 51-53] excess electricity transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 may be stored in the local power storage 115);
controlling the power generation facility to generate power at a second adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the first adjustment amount exceeds electrical energy that the power storage facility has been controlled to charge ([column 8 line 67- column 9 line 5] when the local power-generating devices 135 in the locale produce more electricity than is currently needed at the plurality of prosumer units 105 and if the local power storage 115 is fully charged, this excess electricity may be transmitted to the regional power grid 120 for utilization in other locales.);
controlling the power generation facility to generate power at a third adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the planned electrical energy is equal to or less than actual electrical energy ([column 10 line 45-53] if the local power source 135 at the prosumer unit is not producing sufficient power output to support the load, the inverter 137 may connect the prosumer unit 105 to the local distribution grid 145 to supplement the prosumer unit 105 with excess locally-generated power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 from another prosumer unit 105, excess locally-generated power stored in the local power storage 115, or regional power supplied from the regional power grid 120);
and controlling the power storage facility to discharge power at a fourth adjustment amount corresponding to a difference that occurs when the third adjustment amount exceeds electrical energy that the power generation facility has been controlled to generate ([column 10 line 45-53] if the local power source 135 at the prosumer unit is not producing sufficient power output to support the load, the inverter 137 may connect the prosumer unit 105 to the local distribution grid 145 to supplement the prosumer unit 105 with excess locally-generated power transmitted to the local distribution grid 145 from another prosumer unit 105, excess locally-generated power stored in the local power storage 115, or regional power supplied from the regional power grid 120).
Rothschild does not explicitly teach wherein the controls of the controller are prioritized in following order, (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount, (3) the control at the third adjustment amount, and (4) the control at the fourth adjustment amount.
Haffaf teaches a flowchart (see page 609 section 5) for the proposed energy management prioritization.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated on the flowchart, starting at t= 0 the conditions are checked in order
Haffaf teaches (2) the control at the second adjustment amount ([see Ppv > Pload & SoC(t) = SoCmax on the flowchart])
(1) the control at the first adjustment amount ([see Ppv > Pload & SoCmin < Soc(t) < SoCmax on the flowchart])
(3) the control at the third adjustment amount ([page 608 section 5] This means that the load is supplied by solar energy with priority.)
And (4) the control at the fourth adjustment amount ([page 608 section 5] If there is not enough PV energy, the battery is used to supplement the remaining load.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Haffaf so as to include the prioritization of battery storage charging, and minimize the battery storage discharge. Doing so would allow optimization of the use of energy. (Haffaf [page 600 introduction right section paragraph 3] advantages of the MG include optimizing energy use, reducing GHG emissions, improving energy quality, reducing energy losses and grid congestion, and increasing energy efficiency.).
Rothschild in view of Haffaf teaches the respective control adjustment amounts and prioritization for the said adjustment amounts but teaches the starting use case having the battery being fully charged. Therefore while the concept of prioritizing the charging of the battery is taught, since the battery is fully charged in the start case, Rothcshild in view of Haffaf does not explicitly teach the starting case when the battery is not fully charged (e.g. [prioritizing] (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount.).
Al-Issaei teaches [prioritizing] (1) the control at the first adjustment amount, (2) the control at the second adjustment amount ([page 173 right column paragraph 2] In the first case where an excess power is generated by DGs (Case 1), SoC of the DS is considered as another decision point. In this case, the priority is to charge the battery in DS1; thus, if SoC < 100% (Case 1A), the excess power is sent as a reference signal to the DS. Otherwise, excess power is exported to the main Grid (Case 1B).; The citation is illustrating prioritizing charging the battery (first adjustment amount) over exporting the excess power to the main Grid (second adjustment amount))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Al-Issaei so as to include the prioritization of battery storage charging when there is a surplus. Doing so would allow hierarchical control for the microgrid. (Al-Issaei [page 1 abstract] incorporate communication in a way that allow for the realization of Smart Grids. This concept promises to resolve many of the issues and challenges faced by the increase in the demand of electrical power.).
Regarding Claim 6, Rothschild in view of Al-Issaei in view of Haffaf teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1,
Rothschild further teaches wherein the power storage facility comprises a power storage, which includes at least one of a stationary storage battery, a battery of a battery electric vehicle or a battery of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle ([column 7 line 65-66] The local power storage 115 may comprise a collection of chemical energy storage devices such as batteries).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild, in view of Haffaf, in view of Al-Issaei, and further in view of Tustomu et al. (JP 2017147912 A, herein Tustomu).
Regarding claim 2, Rothschild in view of Haffaf in view of Al-Issaei teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1,
Rothschild further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
([column 16 line 55-59] at OPERATION 428 an indication of excess power generation at the prosumer unit 105 may be received. For example, local power-generating devices 135 at the first prosumer unit 105 may produce more power than the demand of the loads at the prosumer unit);
and control the consumer facility to suppress power consumption at a sixth adjustment amount corresponding a difference ([column 16 line 33-42] if inefficient usage of a particular application or device at a prosumer unit 105 may be determined (e.g., the appliance/device runs during a peak time, but could be scheduled to run during a non-peak time), a determined action may be to notify the prosumer of the inefficiency via an instruction to a home automation or home energy management system at the prosumer unit 105 or via a notification to the prosumer user/owner) that occurs when the fourth adjustment amount exceeds electrical energy that the power storage facility has been controlled to discharge (when the fourth adjustment amount exceeds the electrical energy is interpreted as operating inefficiently [column 16 line 23-26] DECISION OPERATION 420, a determination may be made as to whether the local distribution grid 145 and/or if the prosumer unit 105a connected to the local distribution grid may be operating inefficiently suppress power at a sixth adjustment amount).
Rothschild does not explicitly teach control a consumer facility to consume power at a fifth adjustment amount corresponding to a difference.
Tsutomu teaches control a consumer facility to consume power at a fifth adjustment amount corresponding to a difference (the second adjustment amount is when there is the amount exceeds electrical energy the power generation facility is controlled to generate is interpreted as “the electric power demand will fall below the power supply amount” [0026] The non immediate demand request includes a request to prompt power consumption when it is predicted that the electric power demand will fall below the power supply amount and a request to suppress power consumption when the electric power demand is predicted to exceed the power supply amount.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the control unit of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of Tsutomu so as to include promoting consumer electricity use when there is a surplus of energy. Doing so would allow the promotion of energy use in consumer units when there is excess energy. (Tsutomu [0047] possible to control the double demand response of the electricity demand, and it is possible to plan the same amount at the same time).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild, in view of Haffaf, in view of Al-Issaei, in view of McKellar et al. (US 11015877 B2, herein McKellar).
Regarding claim 3, Rothschild in view of Haffaf in view of Al-Issaei teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Rothschild in view of Haffaf in view of Al-Issaei does not explicitly teach the claim limitations set forth in Claim 3.
McKellar teaches wherein the power generation facility includes a thermal storage facility that converts heat stored in a thermal storage tank into electricity to generate power of thermal energy storage (see FIG. 2 [column 3 line 5-10] primary output of the at least one thermal energy source 102 may be thermal energy in the form of a heated heat transfer fluid (“HTF”). The HTF may transfer heat from the at least one thermal energy source 102 to a thermal power conversion subsystem 112 for converting the thermal energy to electrical energy.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the power storage unit of Rothschild to incorporate the teachings of McKellar so as to include a thermal storage tank within the power generation unit. Doing so would allow a more efficient way of storing and generating energy. ([column 2 line 45-48] efficient management of energy production and distribution in times of low and high energy demand and in times of low and high energy production).
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to Applicant Arguments filed on 09/02/2026 (herein, Arguments) in regards to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 07/22/2026 (herein, Office Action).
Objections to the Disclosure
The amendment for the specification on 09/02/2026 is entered. The objection regarding the title of the invention is withdrawn.
Arguments under 35 USC § 102
Arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Rothschild in view of Haffaf further in view of Al-Issaei. Rothschild teaches the methods of the adjustments in regards to the first ([column 7 line 51-53]), second ([column 8 line 67- column 9 line 5]), third ([column 10 line 45-53]) and fourth ([column 10 line 45-53]) adjustments. However, Rothschild does not explicitly teach the prioritization in regards to the adjustment prioritizing the first, second, third and fourth adjustments respectively.
Haffaf teaches a flowchart depicting the prioritization of the adjustments as the claims illustrate. Haffaf teaches when demand is higher than the supplied power the PV energy (power supplied) is used first, and then the battery is discharged if there is more power required (e.g. PV < Pload), [page 608 section 5]). Haffaf, however, starts at the instance where the battery is fully charged and therefore teaches the concept and the advantages as the Applicant mentions (Arguments page 8 para 1) but does not explicitly teach the starting case of when the battery is not fully charged (e.g. prioritizing the first adjustment amount over the second adjustment amount)
Al-Issaei teaches the prioritization of the adjustments regarding the first adjustment amount over the second adjustment amount when there is a surplus of power provided ([page 173 right column paragraph 2]).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since the cited prior art describe the limitations in these claims. For at least these reasons, the rejection is still deemed proper and has been maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Choi whose telephone number is (571) 270 -0512. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/J.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights