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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/09/2025 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 08/01/2024 are considered acceptable for examination purposes.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200021131 A1 to Schneider et al. (herein "Schneider").
Regarding claim 1, Schneider teaches a method (abstract) of controlling a set of power generating units supplying power to an electrical grid (abstract “energy resources in a microgrid”), comprising:
determining, based on a predicted load demand over a near-term time horizon, one of the set of power generating units to operate in an isochronous mode (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency);
operating the one of the set of power generating units in the isochronous mode to provide power to the electrical grid while performing frequency control on the electrical grid (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency); and
operating other ones of the set of power generating units in a droop mode to provide additional power to the electrical grid (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed….operating in droop mode”).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 1, further including repeating the steps (Paragraph 56, Fig. 6 where it is apparent that the process repeats from block 606) of (1) determining, based on a predicted load demand over a near-term time horizon, one of the set of power generating units to operate in isochronous mode (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency), (2) operating the one of the set of power generating units in the isochronous mode to provide power to the electrical grid while performing frequency control on the electrical grid (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency), and (3) operating the other ones of the set of power generating units in droop mode to provide additional power to the electrical grid (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed….operating in droop mode”) at each of a plurality of different cycle times with each different cycle time having an associated near-term time horizon (Paragraph 41 “Primary Control (time frame sub-seconds to seconds)”, Paragraph 42 “Secondary Control (time frame, seconds to minutes)”, Paragraph 43 “Tertiary Control (minutes to hours)”.
Regarding claim 8, Schneider teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 7, wherein the cycle time is one of a second, a minute, or an hour (Paragraph 41 “Primary Control (time frame sub-seconds to seconds)”, Paragraph 42 “Secondary Control (time frame, seconds to minutes)”, Paragraph 43 “Tertiary Control (minutes to hours)”).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 1, wherein each of the power generating units is a fuel burning power generating unit (Paragraph 24 “diesel generators”).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider teaches a power generating system for providing power to an electrical grid having an electrical distribution network (abstract “multiplicity of energy resources in a microgrid”), the power generating system comprising:
a plurality of power generating units coupled to the electrical distribution network (abstract “multiplicity of energy resources”); and
a control system coupled to each of the plurality of power generators (Paragraph 27), the control system including;
a routine that executes on a computer processor to determine, at each of a multiplicity of cycle times, based on a predicted load demand over a near-term time horizon, one of the plurality of power generating units to operate in an isochronous mode (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency);
a first controller element that operates the determined one of the plurality of power generating units in the isochronous mode during a particular cycle time to provide power to the electrical grid while performing frequency control on the electrical grid (Paragraph “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency); and
a second controller element that operates other ones of the plurality of power generating units in a droop mode during the particular cycle time to provide additional power to the electrical grid (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed….operating in droop mode”).
Regarding claim 17, Schneider teaches the power generating system of claim 11, wherein each of the power generating units is a fuel burning power generating unit (Paragraph 24 “diesel generators”).
Regarding claim 19, Schneider teaches a controller for controlling a set of power generating units supplying power to an electrical grid (abstract “generating operating set points (typically comprising dispatch and droop settings) for each of a multiplicity of energy resources in a microgrid”, Paragraph 27), comprising:
a first routine, stored on a computer memory and executable on a processor (Paragraph 27), to determine during each of a plurality of cycle times and based on a predicted load demand over a near-term time horizon, one of the set of power generating units to operate in isochronous mode during a particular cycle time (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency
a first control routine, stored on a computer memory and executable on a processor (Paragraph 27), to operate the one of the set of power generating units in the particular cycle time in the isochronous mode to provide power to the electrical grid while performing frequency control on the electrical grid (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed that one generating unit in the microgrid is operating in isochronous mode to maintain the nominal 60 Hz line frequency); and
a second control routine, stored on a computer memory and executable on a processor (Paragraph 27), to operate other ones of the set of power generating units in droop mode to provide additional power to the electrical grid (Paragraph 52 “In this optimization process, it is assumed….operating in droop mode”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in light of US 20220069587 A1 to Ledesma et al. (herein "Ledesma").
Regarding claim 2, Schneider teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 1.
Schneider also teaches wherein determining the one of the set of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode includes; implementing an optimization procedure that determines an optimal operating point for each of the set of power generating units based on overall power generating efficiency (Paragraph 51 “generate all candidate operating set points for dispatch and droop values”, “efficiency representation”).
Schneider does not teach selecting the one of the set of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode as the largest capacity power generating unit that, when run at its associated optimal operating point, has a needed power output movement reserve to be able to control frequency on the power grid based on an expected change in the load demand during the near-term time horizon.
However, Ladesma teaches selecting the one of the set of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode as the largest capacity power generating unit that, when run at its associated optimal operating point, has a needed power output movement reserve to be able to control frequency on the power grid based on an expected change in the load demand during the near-term time horizon (Paragraph 44 “The isochronous speed control mode may be used when a GTG is in stand-alone operation, or the GTG is the largest (in power) unit in multiple GTGs (e.g., in the island operation)”).
Both Schneider and Ledesma are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the isochronous mode of Ladesma. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique (operating the largest capacity power generating unit in isochronous mode) to a known device (system for that selects a generator to operate in isochronous mode), wherein the predictable result is a system that selects the largest capacity generator to operate in isochronous mode.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schneider and Ladesma teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 2.
Schneider also teaches wherein the optimization procedure includes an optimization objective function that uses a set of weights for the power generating units to determine the optimal operating point for each of the power generating units (Paragraph 49 “The total microgrid system efficiency….within the microgrid”), and wherein the set of weights are established to weigh a higher capacity power generating unit more than a lower capacity generating unit when a larger load demand change is expected during the near-term time horizon (Paragraph 49 “The total microgrid system efficiency….within the microgrid”).
Regarding claim 12, Schneider teaches the power generating system of claim 11.
Schneider also teaches wherein the routine includes an optimizer that implements an optimization procedure that determines an optimal operating point for each of the set of power generating units based on overall power generating efficiency (Paragraph 51 “generate all candidate operating set points for dispatch and droop values”, “efficiency representation”).
Schneider does not teach and wherein the routine selects the one of the plurality of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode as the largest capacity power generating unit that, when run at its associated optimal operating point, has a needed power output movement reserve to be able to control frequency on the power grid based on an expected change in the load demand over the near-term time horizon.
However, Ladesma teaches and wherein the routine selects the one of the plurality of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode as the largest capacity power generating unit that, when run at its associated optimal operating point, has a needed power output movement reserve to be able to control frequency on the power grid based on an expected change in the load demand over the near-term time horizon (Paragraph 44 “The isochronous speed control mode may be used when a GTG is in stand-alone operation, or the GTG is the largest (in power) unit in multiple GTGs (e.g., in the island operation)”).
Both Schneider and Ledesma are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the isochronous mode of Ladesma. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique (operating the largest capacity power generating unit in isochronous mode) to a known device (system for that selects a generator to operate in isochronous mode), wherein the predictable result is a system that selects the largest capacity generator to operate in isochronous mode.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schneider and Ladesma teaches the power generating system of claim 12.
Schneider also wherein the optimization procedure includes an objective function that uses a set of weights for the power generating units to determine the optimal operating point for each of the power generating units (Paragraph 49 “The total microgrid system efficiency….within the microgrid”), and wherein the set of weights are established to weigh a higher capacity power generating unit more than a lower capacity generating unit when a larger load demand change is expected during the near-term time horizon (Paragraph 49 “The total microgrid system efficiency….within the microgrid”).
Regarding claim 20, Schneider teaches the controller of claim 19.
Schneider also teaches wherein the routine that determines the one of the set of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode includes an optimization procedure that determines an optimal operating point for each of the set of power generating units based on overall power generating efficiency (Paragraph 51 “generate all candidate operating set points for dispatch and droop values”, “efficiency representation”).
Schneider does not teach and wherein the routine selects the one of the plurality of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode as the largest capacity power generating unit that, when run at its associated optimal operating point, has a needed power output movement reserve to be able to control frequency on the power grid based on an expected change in the load demand over the near-term time horizon.
However, Ladesma teaches and wherein the routine selects the one of the plurality of power generating units to operate in the isochronous mode as the largest capacity power generating unit that, when run at its associated optimal operating point, has a needed power output movement reserve to be able to control frequency on the power grid based on an expected change in the load demand over the near-term time horizon (Paragraph 44 “The isochronous speed control mode may be used when a GTG is in stand-alone operation, or the GTG is the largest (in power) unit in multiple GTGs (e.g., in the island operation)”).
Both Schneider and Ledesma are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the isochronous mode of Ladesma. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique (operating the largest capacity power generating unit in isochronous mode) to a known device (system for that selects a generator to operate in isochronous mode), wherein the predictable result is a system that selects the largest capacity generator to operate in isochronous mode.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in light of US 20150039146 A1 to Wei et al. (herein "Wei").
Regarding claim 4, Schneider teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 1.
Schneider does not teach further including generating a load demand prediction over a period of time based on historical load demand data.
However, Wei teaches further including generating a load demand prediction over a period of time based on historical load demand data (Paragraph 40 “calculates and predicts the power load during the next base period according to historical information of the power demand”).
Both Schneider and Wei are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the load demand prediction of Wei in order to help reduce electrical consumption (Paragraph 49 “Thus, electricity usage could be reduced, and the penalty due to exceeding the contracted capacity could be also avoided, thus the controlling of energy saving is achieved”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schneider and Wei teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 4.
Wei also teaches wherein generating the load demand prediction includes creating a load demand prediction model (Paragraph 40 “smart estimation scheme”) based on the historical load demand data and using the load demand prediction model to generate the load demand prediction (Paragraph 40 “calculates and predicts the power load during the next base period according to historical information of the power demand”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schneider and Wei teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 5.
Wei also teaches wherein the load demand prediction model is a neural network model (Paragraph 40 “fuzzy neural network”).
Regarding claim 14, Schneider teaches the power generating system of claim 11.
Schneider does not teach wherein the routine determines a load demand prediction over the near-term time horizon based on historical load demand data.
However, Wei teaches wherein the routine determines a load demand prediction over the near-term time horizon based on historical load demand data (Paragraph 40 “calculates and predicts the power load during the next base period according to historical information of the power demand”).
Both Schneider and Wei are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the load demand prediction of Wei in order to help reduce electrical consumption (Paragraph 49 “Thus, electricity usage could be reduced, and the penalty due to exceeding the contracted capacity could be also avoided, thus the controlling of energy saving is achieved”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schneider and Wei teaches the power generating system of claim 14.
Wei also teaches wherein the routine includes a load demand prediction model created based on the historical data (Paragraph 40 “smart estimation scheme”) and uses the load demand prediction model to generate a load demand prediction over the near-term time horizon during each time cycle (Paragraph 40 “calculates and predicts the power load during the next base period according to historical information of the power demand”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Schneider and Wei teaches the power generating system of claim 15.
Wei also teaches wherein the load demand prediction model is a neural network model (Paragraph 40 “fuzzy neural network”).
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in light of US 20200336003 A1 to Narla et al. (herein "Narla"), further in light of Estimated Droop Control for Parallel Connected Voltage Source Inverters by Faisal Mahmood Ahmed (herein "Ahmed").
Regarding claim 10, Schneider teaches the method of controlling a set of power generating units of claim 1.
Schneider also teaches wherein two or more of the power generating units includes a battery energy storage system (BESS) (Paragraph 26 “Power resources within a microgrid may comprise….batteries, fuel cells…”).
Schneider does not teach and wherein running one of the two or more power generating units that includes a BESS in the isochronous mode includes operating the BESS of the one of the two or more power generating units as a master unit using a voltage controlled inverter and wherein running the other of the two or more power generating units that includes a BESS in the droop mode includes operating the BESS of the other of the two or more power generating units in a slave mode using a current controlled inverter.
However, Narla teaches running one of the two or more power generating units that includes a BESS in the isochronous mode includes operating the BESS of the one of the two or more power generating units as a master unit using a BESS of the other of the two or more power generating units in a slave mode
Both Schneider and Narla are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill In the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the system of Narla. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique (operating a battery as a master unit and operating other batteries in a slave mode) to a known device (an energy management system including batteries as power sources) to yield a predictable result, wherein the predictable result is an energy management system that can operate one of a plurality of batteries as a master unit and operate other batteries in a slave mode.
The combination of Schneider and Narla does not teach operating the BESS of the one of the two or more power generating units as a master unit specifically using a voltage controlled inverter and includes operating the BESS of the other of the two or more power generating units in a slave mode specifically using a current controlled inverter.
However, Ahmed teaches a system wherein a series of inverters are connected in a master-slave configuration where the master inverter operates in voltage controlled mode and the slave inverters operate in current controlled mode (page 18 “In this control technique, one inverter act as a master while the rest of the inverters in the system are slaves to this main inverter. Master inverter operates in voltage controlled mode to control the output voltage of other slave inverters which operate in a current controlled mode”).
Both Schneider and Ahmed are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the voltage and current-controlled inverters of Ahmed. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique (operating one inverter as a master inverter in voltage controlled mode to control the other slave inverters which operate in current controlled mode) to a known device (an energy management system which uses batteries that are connected to a grid using inverters) to yield a predictable result, wherein the predictable result is an energy management system that operates a battery inverter in a master voltage controlled mode and the other battery inverters operate in a slave current controlled mode.
Regarding claim 18, Schneider teaches the power generating system of claim 11.
Schneider also teaches wherein two or more of the power generating units includes a battery energy storage system (BESS) (Paragraph 26 “Power resources within a microgrid may comprise….batteries, fuel cells…”).
Schneider does not teach and wherein the first controller element runs one of the two or more power generating units that includes a BESS in the isochronous mode, the first controller element operates the BESS of the one of the two or more power generating units as a master unit using a voltage controlled inverter and wherein the second controller element runs the other of the two or more power generating units that includes a BESS in the droop mode by operating the BESS of the other of the two or more power generating units in a slave mode using a current controlled inverter.
However, Narla teaches and wherein the first controller element runs one of the two or more power generating units that includes a BESS in the isochronous mode, the first controller element operates the BESS of the one of the two or more power generating units as a master unit
Both Schneider and Narla are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill In the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the system of Narla. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique (operating a battery as a master unit and operating other batteries in a slave mode) to a known device (an energy management system including batteries as power sources) to yield a predictable result, wherein the predictable result is an energy management system that can operate one of a plurality of batteries as a master unit and operate other batteries in a slave mode.
The combination of Schneider and Narla does not teach operating the BESS of the one of the two or more power generating units as a master unit specifically using a voltage controlled inverter and includes operating the BESS of the other of the two or more power generating units in a slave mode specifically using a current controlled inverter.
However, Ahmed teaches a system wherein a series of inverters are connected in a master-slave configuration where the master inverter operates in voltage controlled mode and the slave inverters operate in current controlled mode (page 18 “In this control technique, one inverter act as a master while the rest of the inverters in the system are slaves to this main inverter. Master inverter operates in voltage controlled mode to control the output voltage of other slave inverters which operate in a current controlled mode”).
Both Schneider and Ahmed are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Schneider with the voltage and current-controlled inverters of Ahmed. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique (operating one inverter as a master inverter in voltage controlled mode to control the other slave inverters which operate in current controlled mode) to a known device (an energy management system which uses batteries that are connected to a grid using inverters) to yield a predictable result, wherein the predictable result is an energy management system that operates a battery inverter in a master voltage controlled mode and the other battery inverters operate in a slave current controlled mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM XIANG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30 AM - 5 PM).
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 5712722748. 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.
/W.X.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights