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 . Claims 1-20 filed on 6/3/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 6/2/2025 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/3/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 6/3/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 currently recites, “A method of generating the state machine for one or more of the primary controller, the secondary controller, and the tertiary controller of the control system of claim 6, the method comprising:”, which provides a dependent method claim depending upon a system claim, which, provides confusion and raises potential multiple dependent claim issues. Further, per the fee worksheet (SB06) form, it is listed that a fee was paid for two independent claims, however, due to the dependency of the method claim to the system claim, there is only technically one independent claim (claim 1). Please amend claim 16 to remove dependency from claim 6 and make it a proper independent claim per the filed worksheet.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 16 recites, “generating a discrete event model of each of the components to be controlled by the state machine;”, “combining the discrete event models of the components using a supervisory control theory (SCT) tool to generate a combined discrete event model;”, “generating a control specification associated with the control of the components by the state machine;”, and “generating the state machine using the SCT tool based on the combined discrete event model and the control specification;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include generating a plurality of discrete event and state machine models which employ mathematical calculations and thus fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 further recites, “outputting the state machine.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely outputs the state machine without disclosing how the use of the state machine effects control of the system and thus merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Finally, the limitations of, “primary controller”, “secondary controller”, and “tertiary controller”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering state machine data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Review of dependent claims 17-20 also point to claim limitations that are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 17-20 each disclose further limitations regarding generation/regeneration of the various state machine and discrete event models based on various determinations or conditions, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes a plurality of additional limitations performing mathematical calculations for generating various state machine models, and thus falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammad et al. (US Patent 11,381,582) in view of Brainard et al. (US PGPUB 20140249686).
Regarding Claim 1; Mohammad teaches; A control system for controlling one or more multiple-microgrid systems, the control system comprising: (Mohammad; at least Fig. 1; column 1, lines 9-50; disclose a system and method for controlling and coordinating control of a plurality of networked microgrids)
two or more primary controllers, each primary controller to be in communication with a corresponding microgrid (MG) and a corresponding microgrid circuit breaker (MGCB) interposed between the corresponding MG and a corresponding feeder line of a corresponding multiple-microgrid system (MMG), the MG connected to the feeder line at a point of common coupling (PCC); (Mohammad; at least Figs. 1 and 3; column 8, lines 45-67; disclose a plurality of primary controllers connected to a main medium voltage buss (feeder) at a point of common coupling)
a secondary controller associated with the corresponding MMG, the secondary controller to be in communication with the one or more primary controllers, the secondary controller also to be in communication with a multiple-microgrid system circuit breaker (MMGCB) interposed between the MMG and a transmission line; and (Mohammad; at least Figs. 1 and 3; column 8, lines 45-67; disclose a plurality of secondary distributed controllers connected to the primary controllers)
a tertiary controller to be in communication with: the secondary controller; one or more electrical utilities; and (Mohammad; at least Figs. 1 and 3; column 8, lines 45-67; column 18, lines 43-55; column 20, lines 65-67; disclose a tertiary controller in communication with the secondary controllers as well as one or more utilities for communicating and controlling global utility objectives).
Though Mohammad discloses control of distribution of power amongst the system, they appear to be silent on; two or more primary controllers, each primary controller to be in communication with a corresponding microgrid (MG) and a corresponding microgrid circuit breaker (MGCB) interposed between the corresponding MG and a corresponding feeder line of a corresponding multiple-microgrid system (MMG), the MG connected to the feeder line at a point of common coupling (PCC);
a secondary controller associated with the corresponding MMG, the secondary controller to be in communication with the one or more primary controllers, the secondary controller also to be in communication with a multiple-microgrid system circuit breaker (MMGCB) interposed between the MMG and a transmission line; and
one or more utility circuit breakers (UCBs) each corresponding to one of the one or more utilities, each UCB interposed between the corresponding utility and the transmission line.
However, Brainard teaches; two or more primary controllers, each primary controller to be in communication with a corresponding microgrid (MG) and a corresponding microgrid circuit breaker (MGCB) interposed between the corresponding MG and a corresponding feeder line of a corresponding multiple-microgrid system (MMG), the MG connected to the feeder line at a point of common coupling (PCC); (Brainard; at least Figs. 1 and 4; paragraphs [0020] and [0033]; disclose a multi microgrid control system and method including a plurality of level of controllers that, in response to various control actions issued from varying levels of the control structure, operate appropriate breakers that the various controllers are associated with)
a secondary controller associated with the corresponding MMG, the secondary controller to be in communication with the one or more primary controllers, the secondary controller also to be in communication with a multiple-microgrid system circuit breaker (MMGCB) interposed between the MMG and a transmission line; and (Brainard; at least Figs. 1 and 4; paragraphs [0020] and [0033]; disclose a multi microgrid control system and method including a plurality of level of controllers that, in response to various control actions issued from varying levels of the control structure, operate appropriate breakers that the various controllers are associated with)
one or more utility circuit breakers (UCBs) each corresponding to one of the one or more utilities, each UCB interposed between the corresponding utility and the transmission line. (Brainard; at least Figs. 1 and 4; paragraphs [0020] and [0033]; disclose a multi microgrid control system and method including a plurality of level of controllers that, in response to various control actions issued from varying levels of the control structure, operate appropriate breakers that the various controllers are associated with including utility level breakers).
Mohammad and Brainard are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, multi microgrid coordination and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of operating breakers using the various controllers as disclosed by Brainard with the known system of a multi microgrid monitoring and control system as taught by Mohammad in order to allow the system to open and close breakers depending on the situation of utility/neighboring systems to allow things to achieve stable operating states before tying the systems together to prevent any system level failures as taught by Brainard (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 2; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 1, further comprising: a further secondary controller associated with a further corresponding MMG, the further secondary controller to be in communication with one or more further primary controllers associated with the further corresponding MMG, the further secondary controller also to be in communication with a further multiple- microgrid system circuit breaker (further MMGCB) interposed between the further MMG and the transmission line; and wherein: the tertiary controller is to be in communication with the further secondary controller. (Mohammad; at least Figs. 1 and 3; column 8, lines 45-67).
Regarding Claim 3; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 1, wherein the secondary controller is further to receive measurements of one or more operational parameters measured at the PCC. (Brainard; at least Fig. 5; paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 4; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 3, wherein the operational parameters comprise one or more of voltage, current, and frequency in the feeder line at the PCC. (Brainard; at least paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the MGs each comprise one or more of a source to generate electrical energy, a load to consume electrical energy, and a battery energy store system (BESS) to store or release electrical energy. (Mohammad; at least column 24, lines 10-32).
Regarding Claim 6; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 5, wherein one or more of the primary controllers, the secondary controller, and the tertiary controller comprise processing hardware to execute machine-readable instructions embodying a state machine. (Mohammad; at least column 24, lines 1-46).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 6, wherein the processing hardware comprises a programmable logic controller (PLC). (Mohammad; at least column 8, lines 45-67).
Regarding Claim 8; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 6, wherein the state machine is based on a discrete event model of one or more of: the one or more MGs, the one or more MGCBs, the MMG, the MMGCB, the one or more electrical utilities, and the one or more UCBs. (Mohammad; at least column 18, lines 11-31).
Regarding Claim 9; the combination of Mohammad and Brainard teach; The control system of claim 8, wherein: the state machine is associated with one of the primary controllers associated with the corresponding MG; and the state machine covers all possible events in the discrete event model of the corresponding MG. (Mohammad; at least column 18, lines 11-31).
Allowable Subject Matter
The office would first like to state, that claims 16-20 currently have a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection outstanding that must be resolved prior to consideration of allowance.
Claims 10-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (US PGPUB 2019010343): disclose a distributed microgrid system and method which includes synchronizing adjacent grids with each other prior to connecting the neighboring systems and wherein the system can further isolate each individual system such that it may operate on its own during an event on a neighboring system.
Manson (US PGPUB 20180152022): disclose a system and method for controlling a multi microgrid system wherein the system includes a multi-level controller system in which local controllers can communicate with higher level controllers to control various devices within in its own microgrid such as breakers and generators.
Majumder (US PGPUB 201902647838): disclose a microgrid system and method which includes a plurality of controllers which communicate at various levels of the microgrid in order to control distribution of power.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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 at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights