DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beltran et al. (“Daily Solar Energy Estimation for Minimizing Energy Storage Requirements in PV Power Plants”).
Regarding independent claims 1, 6, and 7, Beltran teaches (Fig. 1) a control system and method, including a computer-readable recording medium on which a control program is recorded, the program causes a computer to execute a process comprising:
generating an initial planned value of a supplied power energy to a power grid (EPS) in each of a plurality of time slots (pg. 476, left column, paragraph starting “To enter…” );
controlling power supply to the power grid using generated power of a power generator (PV Plant) and charge-and-discharge power of an electric storage system (ESS) such that an actual value of the supplied energy to the power grid is made close to a planned value in a time slot after determination of the planned value (pg. 475, left column, starting with “Therefore,…”; equation (1)); and
changing the planned value (via intraday market adjustments) in the time slot before determination of the planned value such that an integrated charge-and-discharge energy of the electric storage system is made close to zero (pg. 475, right column, starting with “The EMS proposal…”; pg. 476, right column, starting with “In order to…”; pg. 479, Section A),
wherein the integrated charge-and-discharge energy is an integrated value of the charge-and-discharge power of the electric storage system (pg. 475, right column, starting with “The EMS proposal…”; equation (4); the Applicant’s integrated value Pa is equivalent to Beltran’s equation (4), which shows the integrated and accumulated energy that is trying to be made close to zero; the difference in Beltran’s SOC is equivalent to the integrated charge-and-discharge power; i.e. if the difference in SOC is 5% (from 50% to 45%), then the accumulated energy discharged is known based on the total capacity of the ESS), and
changing the planned value includes adding a value obtained by inverting a sign of the integrated charge-and-discharge energy at an end of the time slot after determination of the planned value to the planned value in the time slot before determination of the planned value (pg. 479, left column, starting with “Type II…”; Beltran takes into account deviations from previous time slots to adjust SOC to minimize the deviation; the way to do this is by adding a value inverse to previous action), and
the controlling includes controlling the power supply to the power grid such that the actual value of the supplied energy is made close to the changed planned value (pg. 475, left column, starting with “Therefore…”; equation (1)).
Regarding claim 3, Beltran teaches changing the planned value includes changing the planned value in the earliest time slot before determination of the planned value from the end of the time slot after determination of the planned value (pg. 475, right column, “The EMS…”; Beltran wants to correct SOC deviation ASAP to keep SOC as close to reference value at each moment, which would also allow for lowest capacity ESS which is a goal of Beltran).
Regarding claim 4, Beltran teaches the time slots are a plurality of time slots obtained by dividing a plan subject day (pg. 475, right column – pg. 476, left column; “24 hourly periods”),
generating the initial planned value (via QP calculation) includes submitting the initial planned value to a power transmission and distribution operator (“grid operator”) that manages the power grid by a day before the plan subject day (pg. 475, right column, “The P*ref…”), and
changing the planned value includes submitting the changed planned value to the power transmission and distribution operator on the plan subject day (i.e. intraday; pg. 476, right column, “Given that the…”).
Regarding claim 5, Beltran teaches power generation by the power generator includes power generation using natural energy (i.e. Solar),
generating the initial planned value includes generating a predicted value of the generated energy of the power generator as the initial planned value (pg. 475, right column; i.e. production forecasts), and
the controlling includes absorbing a value of variation from the predicted value (P*ref) of the generated energy of the power generator using the charge-and-discharge energy of the electric storage system (pg. 475, left column; equation (1)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the integrated value of the charge-and-discharge power of the electric storage system, the Examiner believes that Beltran teaches this value with regards to the deviation of the SOC from a reference/initial value (similar to Applicant’s Fig. 7). As explained above, the Examiner believes that determining the difference in Beltran’s SOC is equivalent to the integrated charge-and-discharge power; i.e. if the difference in SOC is 5% (from 50% down to 45%), then the accumulated energy discharged is known based on it being equivalent to 5% the total capacity of the ESS. Also, maintaining the SOC deviation to a minimum in Beltran is analogous to the Applicant’s net energy deviation. The Examiner believes both Beltran and the claimed invention use the same energy balancing method, they just calculate the integrated charge-and-discharge energy in different but analogous ways.
The Applicant asserts that the methods (claimed vs. Beltran) are different because the claimed method is for minimizing storage capacity and Beltran, allegedly, doesn’t teach. The Examiner disagrees. Beltran mentions the goal of minimizing storage capacity multiple times (pg. 475, right column, “The EMS proposal…” paragraph; and pg. 478, right column, the last paragraph).
Regarding the “inverting a sign of the integrated charge-and-discharge energy” limitation, as described above in the rejection, Beltran takes into account deviations from previous time slots to adjust the SOC to minimize the deviation and the inherent way to do this is by adding a value inverse to the previous action. For example, like the above example where the deviation is 5% (from 50% to 45%) based on a discharge of 5% of the ESS capacity, it is inherent that to minimize this deviation one must charge (i.e. the inverse of discharge) energy equivalent to 5% of the ESS capacity back into the ESS to increase the SOC back to the 50% reference value, wherein the integrated charge-and-discharge energy would be zero.
Regarding claim 3, the Examiner believes that Beltran teaches performing immediate feedback just like the claimed invention. Beltran teaches immediately canceling the error in the next available slot. Beltran (at pg. 476, right column, “Given that…” and the next paragraph) teaches adjusting the planned values after each time period, and (at pg. 478, right column, last paragraph) refining power commitments after each time period, and (at pg. 479, left column, “Type II…”) adjusting commitments after each time slot to minimize SOC deviation. The Examiner acknowledges that Beltran initially optimizes a schedule over a 24 hour period, but also adjusts after each time period within the 24 hours. The Examiner believes that Beltran and the claimed invention perform the same function because they have the same goal which is to reduce the required storage capacity.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR 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 PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
3/11/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836