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 .
1. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble misses a transitional phrase for example “comprising” or “consisting essentially of,” or some equivalent term) flow with “:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Independent Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “pareto front” essential elements according to the specification US 20250013215 A1, par. [0098] “The optimizations may respectively identify the operating points for which the individual objective function (for utopia point determination) or the composite objective function (for Pareto front generation) become optimal (typically minimum). The optimizations may respectively identify these minimum values of the objective function (for utopia point determination) or the composite objective function (for Pareto front generation)” Therefore, the Pareto front is an essential characteristic and has to be defined in the independent claims.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-10 and 16, defines “utopia value” without defining the utopia (characteristics) in any of the claim. Such term should define according the specification Par.[0018] at least once in the claim to clearly define the term to avoid the ambiguous and those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification, see MPEP §2173.02.
The term “minimizes” and “minimum” in claims 1, 5-7 and 14-15 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimizes” and “minimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 18-19, the phrase “scenario” and “different scenarios” are unclear and vague. Ether the specification nor the claims define what exactly the “scenario/s” is/are representing. Appropriate correction is required.
As claims 2-13 and 15-20 are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1, those claims are also allowable at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method of operating an energy management system for a microgrid, wherein the EMS performs a multi-objective optimization to determine one or several asset operating points over a predictive time horizon, wherein performing the MOO determines the one or several asset operating points as a function of time over the predictive time horizon that minimize a composite objective function that is a weighted sum of several objective functions, wherein the method comprises automatically determining, by at least one integrated circuit, weights by which the several objective functions are weighted in the composite objective function that is to be used by the EMS in the MOO.
The limitation of determine operating points over a predictive time horizon and determines the one or several asset operating points as a function of time over the predictive time horizon, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (energy management system), That is, other than reciting “using energy management system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating using a mathematical equation (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
In addition, the limitations “automatically determining…”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components “by at least one integrated circuit”, without define how the “automatically” has been done is consider as a mathematical expression (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites one additional element -using integrated circuit”, to perform the determine steps. The integrated circuit (processor) in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determine the operating points over a predictive time horizon and automatically determining weights by which the objective functions are weighted in the composite objective function that is to be used by the EMS in the MOO) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor (integrated circuit) to perform both the determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, independent claims 14 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claim 1. Thus, the independent of claims 1 and 14 are not patentable eligible.
As the dependent claims 2-12 and 15-20 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claims 1 and 14, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As dependent claims 2-10, 12, 15 and 17, recite – the steps of determine… consider as a mathematical calculations/ humans can perform using pen and paper and mentally process the observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions , see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As dependent claim 11, recite- clustering data is consider collecting data and grouping (mere data gathering, generally viewed as routine, conventional data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) is insignificant extra-solution elements, see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and automatically determining the weights is considered a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III or the “heat map” is a mathematical algorithm). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As dependent claim 16, recite- define the utopia value associated with emission effects is consider insignificant extra-solution, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As dependent claims 18-20, recite – list of information is considering insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5.1 Claim(s) 1, 12, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Zavala (REAL-TIME RESOLUTIONOFCONFLICTINGOBJECTIVES INBUILDINGENERGY MANAGEMENT: ANUTOPIA-TRACKINGAPPROACH).
Regarding claim 1 and 14, Zavala discloses method of operating an energy management system(page 1, column 1, par. 2, Optimization-based energy management), for a microgrid
wherein the energy management system(Abstract, real-time energy management) performs a multi-objective optimization(Abstract, page 1, column 2, a utopia-tracking multi-objective optimization strategy to resolve conflicting objectives in real-time energy management) to determine one or several asset operating points over a predictive time horizon (Fig. 1, page 1, column 2, page 5, column 2, The accumulated energy demand over a time horizon τ∈[t,t+T] is given by equation 33 competing comfort objective of the form by equation 34, and Pareto front (the objective function) by selecting a weight wj),
wherein performing the MOO determines the one or several asset operating points as a function of time over the predictive time horizon that minimize a composite objective function that is a weighted sum of several objective functions ((page 1, column 1, Par. 1-2, page 6, column 2, par. 1-2, optimization engine to compute optimal operating conditions that minimize/maximize a given performance objective as internal and external building conditions change in time, weights strongly depend on the building conditions. Consequently, fixing weights throughout daily, weekly, and seasonal cycles can lead to large excursions in performance. This indicates that the approach can be deployed in real-time strategies such as receding-horizon energy management and predictive control),
wherein the method comprises automatically determining, by at least one integrated circuit, weights by which the several objective functions (Abstract, Pareto front) are weighted in the composite objective function (Abstract, utopia point) that is to be used by the EMS in the MOO weighting-based multi-objective optimization (column 2, par. 1-2, a utopia-tracking strategy to handle the limitations of weighting-based multi-objective optimization. The approach automatically determines the point along the Pareto front of minimum distance to the so-called utopia point. The proposed approach requires only the coordinates of the utopia point to determine the weights corresponding to the minimum distance solution along the Pareto front to the utopia point).
Regarding claim 12, Zavala discloses performing, by the EMS, the MOO (column 1, page 1, multi-objective optimization strategy) to determine the one or several asset operating points as a function of time over the predictive time horizon(page 5, column 2, Objective, energy demand over a time horizon; enforcing comfort is using the predicted mean vote (PMV) and predicted percentage dissatisfied (PPD)indexes), wherein the objective function (page 1, column 2, par. 2, the objectives or cost functions) are given in the MOO (page 1, column 2, par. 2, multi-objective optimization) depends on the determined weights (page 1, column 2, par. 2, determine the state degree of freedom, see equation 1A-2).
Regarding claim 15, Zavala discloses microgrid, comprising: a plurality of controllable assets; an energy management system (EMS), (page 6, par. controller or optimization-based energy management) wherein the EMS is operative to perform a multi-objective optimization (MOO) (Abstract, page 1, column 2, weighting-based multi-objective optimization) to determine one or several asset operating points over a predictive time horizon (Fig. 1, indicates that the approach can be deployed in real-time strategies such as receding-horizon energy management and predictive control), wherein the MOO determines the one or several asset operating points as a function of time over the predictive time horizon that minimize a composite objective function that is a weighted sum of several objective functions (page 1, column 1, Par. 1-2, page 6, column 2, par. 1-2, optimization engine to compute optimal operating conditions that minimize/maximize a given performance objective as internal and external building conditions change in time, weights strongly depend on the building conditions. Consequently, fixing weights throughout daily, weekly, and seasonal cycles can lead to large excursions in performance. This indicates that the approach can be deployed in real-time strategies such as receding-horizon energy management and predictive control).
Regarding claim 20, Zavala discloses the predictive time horizon comprises at least 24 hours (Figure 5, Pareto front of energy demand against comfort error for a horizon of 3 days).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
6.1 Claim(s) 2-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavala in view of Asghari et al. (US 2015/0311713 A1).
Regarding claims 2-8 and 16, Zavala discloses the limitations of claim 1,
In addition, regarding claim 2, Zavala discloses automatically determining the weights (Abstract, automatically locates the optimal weights) by which the objective functions (page 2, column 2, par 3, objectives or cost functions ) are to be weighted in the composite objective function that is to be used by the EMS (page 1, optimization-based energy management) in the MOO (page 2, column 2, multi-objective optimization, see Equation 1(a)(2), comprises the following steps performed using the at least one integrated circuit:
determining a set of utopia values, each of the utopia values corresponding to an optimal value of one of the several objective functions when optimized independently of the other objective functions (Page 1, column 2, par. 2, an utopia-tracking multi-objective optimization strategy to resolve conflicting objectives in real-time energy management; the utopia point is, as the name suggests, an ideal point given by the intersection of the objective values obtained when each objective is minimized independently without taking into account the rest of the conflicting objectives), and
determining the weights by which the objective functions are to be weighted based on the Pareto front and the set of utopia values (page 2, column 1, par. 3, equation 5, the Pareto front is constructed, the decision maker or expert selects a point along the Pareto front by selecting a weight wj. Many criteria are typically used to select such a point. Intuitively, the expert to select the weight that is the closest to the limiting performance of the system. This point is given by the utopia point. The utopia is a point given by the solution (xL i ) with coordinates ΦL i = Φi(xL i ) in the cost space. The coordinates are given by the solution of the problem).
However, Zavala fails to disclose determining a Pareto front of optimal solutions, each of the optimal solutions optimizing a different weighted sum of the several objective functions.
Asghari discloses determining a Pareto front of optimal solutions, each of the optimal solutions optimizing a different weighted sum of the several objective functions (Abstract, [0009], a multi-objective optimization approach is used to formulate the energy management problem based on service definition and operational cost of a microgrid. A set of Pareto optimal solutions can be calculated for operation of a microgrid during each service period. A weighted-sum optimization approach can be used in which the weighted-sum method is used to find the Pareto front of the bi-optimization problem).
Asghari and Zavala are analogous art. They relate to power balancing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify power flow profile at a point of common coupling (PCC), taught by Asghari, incorporated with utopia-tracking multi-objective optimization, taught by Zavala, in order to achieve a certain objective function based on the request by the utility and microgrid to deliver various services to the utility and reduce its operational cost simultaneously can be done.
Regarding claim 3, Zavala discloses determining the weights based on the Pareto front and the set of utopia values (page 1, column 2, Par. 1, automatically determines the weight point along the Pareto front of minimum distance to the so-called utopia point) comprises determining a utopia point having coordinates defined by the set of utopia values (Fig. 2, Fig. 5, comfort-energy Pareto front, utopia point, and compromise solution).
Regarding claim 4, Zavala discloses determining the weights based on the Pareto front and the set of utopia values comprises determining distances of the utopia point from points on the Pareto front (page 1, column 1, par. 2, determine the weights corresponding to the minimum distance solution along the Pareto front to the utopia point).
Regarding claim 5, Zavala discloses determining the weights based on the Pareto front and the set of utopia values comprises determining a point on the Pareto front that has a minimum distance from the utopia point (page 1, column 2, par. 2, determine the weights corresponding to the minimum distance solution along the Pareto front to the utopia point).
Regarding claim 6, Zavala discloses the weights by which the objective functions are weighted in the composite objective function are determined based on weights applied to the several objective functions when determining the point on the Pareto front that has the minimum distance from the utopia point (page 1, column 2, page 2, column 2, Fig. 1, The utopia point is, an ideal point given by the intersection of the objective values obtained when each objective is minimized independently without taking into account the rest of the conflicting objectives. The proposed approach requires only the coordinates of the utopia point to determine the weights corresponding to the minimum distance solution along the Pareto front to the utopia point).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zavala and Asghari disclose:
Zavala discloses determining the utopia values comprises determining a first utopia value that represents a minimum of a first objective function ((Page 1, column 2, page 2, column 1, par. 3, the utopia point is an ideal point given by the intersection of the objective values obtained when each objective is minimized independently without taking into account the rest of the conflicting objectives); and Asghari discloses associated with energy production at a grid to which the microgrid is connected and determining a second utopia value associated with local energy production at the microgrid (Abstract, providing service-based interactions between a utility and a microgrid by adjusting power flow profile at a point of common coupling (PCC) between a microgrid and a utility. A multi-objective optimization approach is used to formulate the energy management problem based on service definition and operational cost of a microgrid. A set of Pareto optimal solutions can be calculated for operation of a microgrid during each service period).
Regarding claim 8, Zavala discloses determining the weights comprises determining a first weight by which a first objective function associated with energy production at a grid to which the microgrid is connected is multiplied in the composite objective function (Page 1, column 2, Page 2, column 1, par. 3, select the weight that is the closest to the limiting performance of the system. This point is given by the utopia point. The utopia point is an ideal point given by the intersection of the objective values obtained when each objective is minimized independently without taking into account the rest of the conflicting objectives. The proposed approach requires only the coordinates of the utopia point to determine the weights corresponding to the minimum distance solution along the Pareto front to the utopia point), and a second weight by which a second objective function associated with local energy production at the microgrid is multiplied in the composite objective function).
Regarding claim 16, Zavala discloses the second utopia value associated with local energy production includes emission effects (page 6, column 1 and 2, utopia-tracking strategy locates the utopia point and the compromise solution to compute the optimal trade-off point at the current real-time conditions. The setting is that energy demand can, in fact, increase, thus affecting indirect emissions)
6.2 Claim(s) 9, 10, 17, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavala in view of Asghari further in view of XING (CN 106779313 A).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 17-19, Zavala and Asghari disclose the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 8, but fail to disclose the limitations of claims 9-10 and 19. However, Xing discloses as follow:
Regarding claim 9, XING discloses determining the utopia values (page 9, par. 4, objective programming model, i.e. Utopia's line and Pareto curved surfaces is maximum) and determining the Pareto front respectively comprises performing an optimization under constraints (page 9, par. 8, solution formula is carried out to model using CVX, obtains the Pareto front ends disaggregation after specification as shown in table 3, Pareto front ends solve weight relationship β Under Pareto optimal solutions).
Regarding claim 10, XING discloses determining the utopia values (page 11, par. 4, obtain Utopia's line, normal vector on Utopia's line), determining the Pareto front (page 11, par. 4, The mode of individual Pareto optimal solutions correspondence multiple target forms mapping matrix), and determining the weights are respectively performed for each one of a plurality of different scenarios (page 2, par. 7- page 3, par.7, page 5, par. 6, a Pareto optimal solution, setting Weight b b vectors β. It is mapped in object space L, obtains Utopia's line, normal vector n on Utopia's line Before multiple target Pareto End k b Page 2 A vectors β It is mapped in object space L, obtains Utopia's line, normal vector n on Utopia's line).
Regarding claim 19, Xing discloses the different scenarios are distinguished from each other with respect to load and/or power generation profiles of the microgrid (page 9, par. 5, Model and algorithm are verified using wind-powered electricity generation (Wind Turbine Generator, WTG), photovoltaic (Photovoltaic Generator, PVG) and miniature gas turbine (Micro Turbine Generator, MTG).
Xing, Asghari and Zavala are analogous art. They relate to power balancing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Pareto front ends solution being evenly distributed, taught by Xing, incorporated with teaching of Asghari and Zavala, as stated above, in order to multiple target distributed power source addressing constant volume method based on mixed integer programming.
Regarding claim 17, Zavlal discloses determining the weights further comprises determining a third weight by which a third objective function associated with an energy storage system of the microgrid is multiplied (Page 1, column 1, par. 3, page 5, column 2, determine optimal weights (first, second…) by constructing the Pareto front (objective function) and then selecting an appropriate set of weights from Pareto front of energy demand against comfort error for an horizon) and wherein the second objective function includes emission effects (page 6, column 2, par. 2, page 4, column 2, energy demand can increase, thus affecting indirect emissions. Concentration of CO2 to ppmV (typical metric for air quality) using the relationship); but Zavala fail to discloses associated with an energy storage system of the microgrid is multiplied.
However, Xing discloses (page 4, Multiple target distributed power source addressing constant volume method based on mixed integer programming used for the Pareto front ends solution being evenly distributed NBI methods are processed multi-objective).
Xing, Asghari and Zavala are analogous art. They relate to power balancing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Pareto front ends solution being evenly distributed, taught by Xing, incorporated with teaching of Asghari and Zavala, as stated above, in order to multiple target distributed power source addressing constant volume method based on mixed integer programming.
Regarding claim 18, Zavala discloses the constraints comprise one or more of power balance Page 4, column 2, energy balance), consistency of a load profile, and Xing discloses power generation of the microgrid with a predetermined scenario (a distributed manner Generation, DG) it is that the renewable energy power generation of representative is increasingly taken seriously. DG can reduce the transmission power of circuit, Reduce distribution system loss and improve quality of voltage, improve the reliability of power distribution network).
6.3 Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavala in view of Bullich-Massagué (Microgrid clustering architectures)
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Zavala discloses the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, regarding claim 11, Zavala discloses automatically determining the weights is performed for at least one of the use cases (Abstract, page 1, column 1, automatically locates the optimal weight and determine the weights corresponding to the minimum distance solution along the Pareto front to the utopia point),
But Zavala fails to disclose clustering data obtained for a plurality of microgrids to identify a plurality of use cases. However, Bullich-Massagué discloses clustering data obtained for a plurality of microgrids (page 340, column 1, par. 1, Table 5, a specific microgrid clustering) to identify a plurality of use cases (Table 5, Page 341, column 2, section 2, Table 6, A general scheme of a microgrid is shown in Fig. 1 where, according to the definition, distributed resources (storage and generation), loads) and controllable loads can be observed).
Bullich-Massagué and Zavala are analogous art. They relate to power balancing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify renewable energy generation, taught by Bullich-Massagué, incorporated with utopia-tracking multi-objective optimization taught by Zavala, in order to perform in terms of cost, scalability, protection, reliability, stability, communications and business models. This analysis gives a great grid planners and policy makers, who can select the most adequate architecture in function to improve the reliability, resiliency and stability.
In addition, as claim 13, Zavala discloses providing, by the EMS (Abstract, real-time energy management), the one or several asset operating points to a power management system (column 1, par. 3, the optimal trade-off point at the current real-time conditions. Note that the utopia energy demand is around 2,000 kWh (same us power management system), given by the limit in which comfort is fully relaxed). but Zavala fails to disclose controlling, by the PMS (power system, controllable assets of the microgrid in accordance with the operating points determined by the EMS. However, Bullich-Massagué discloses controlling, by the PMS (power system, controllable assets of the microgrid in accordance with the operating points determined by the EMS (Fig. 1, page 340, column 2, page 341, column 1, par. 2, the huge number of DERs, the new challenges focus on grid operation and control to improve their reliability, resiliency or stability of microgrid. The power electronics applications, the operation and control in microgrids, the protection, the communication systems and different economic aspects of microgrids).
Citation Pertinent prior art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tuckey et al. (US 2020/0274356 A1) discloses a microgrid control system may be a Power Management System (PMS) that can coordinate a plurality of individual controllable power-generating assets and discretionary load (DL) assets in a predefined way.
Elbsat et al. (US 2018/0224814 A1) discloses an energy cost optimization system for a building includes HVAC equipment and a controller. The controller is configured to generate a cost function defining a cost of operating the HVAC equipment as a function of one or more energy load setpoints.
Yang et al. (US 2015/0039145 A1) discloses a microgrid includes a plurality of distributed energy resources such as controllable distributed electric generators and electrical energy storage devices.
Gopalan (US 20060045123 A1) discloses the UTOPIA Level 2 data path interface or the UTOPIA Level 3 data path interface, which include a data rate, a bus width, electromagnetic interference (EMI) emission limits, and the like.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights