DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/7/2026.
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.
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 1-4, 8-9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0073483 (Boot) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0194240 (Baxter).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a load management system comprising: (Boot: “This invention generally relates to electrical power distribution and power transformers, and in particular, to protecting power transformers from overload.” Paragraph 0001; “According to an example embodiment of the invention, a method is provided for protecting a power transformer from overload. The method can include receiving transformer power rating information; receiving load information from individual meters supplied by the power transformer; summing the received load information; comparing the summed load information to the received transformer power rating information; and determining spare load capacity associated with the power transformer based at least in part on the comparison.” Paragraph 0004)
a load management server associated with a utility; and (Boot: see the demand response system 118 as illustrated in figure 1 and as described in paragraph 0016; “Example embodiments of the system and/or apparatus include an advanced metering infrastructure network 124 for sending one or more demand response messages to the individual meters 132.” Paragraph 0021)
a first revenue meter communicatively connected to the load management server, the first revenue meter including a first controller configured to: (Boot: see the AMI meters 132 and controller 102 as illustrated in figure 1 and as described in paragraph 0015)
Boot does not explicitly describe priority or an indication as described below. However, Baxter teaches the priority and indication as described below.
determine a user priority of load distribution to a plurality of devices in communication with the first revenue meter, (Baxter: see the charging stations 310, 315, 120, 325, 330 as illustrated in figure 3; “In some embodiments, the vehicle operators can also define a privilege or priority level of their request (e.g., charge immediately, charge anytime, etc.) which may affect the cost of that charging session.” Paragraph 0037; “one or more charging session attributes (e.g., charging session duration, the type of account associated with the charging session (e.g., privilege of the account), percentage of charge complete, percentage of charge remaining, battery temperature of the electric vehicle, time remaining on the charging session, priority of the charging session, etc.))” paragraph 0049)
determine a current power drawn by the plurality of devices, (Boot: “In block 204, the method 200 includes receiving load information from individual meters supplied by the power transformer.” Paragraph 0018)
transmit, in response to a load shed event and based on the user priority, a load shed command to the plurality of devices indicating a new amount of power to be drawn by the plurality of devices, the new amount of power to be drawn being less than the current power drawn by the plurality of devices, and (Boot: “Example embodiments include sending one or more demand response messages to the individual meters 132. . . . According to an example embodiment, a control command may be sent to one or more electrical vehicle chargers to limit or stop charging if a load associated with the power transformer exceeds a safe operating limit or predetermined limit.” Paragraph 0019; “According to an example embodiment, power can be limited by the one or more meters 132. According to an example embodiment, at least one processor may be configured to send a control command to one or more electrical vehicle chargers to limit or stop charging if a load associated with the power transformer exceeds a safe operating limit or predetermined limit.” Paragraph 0021) (Baxter: see the set current allocation 4.3 as illustrated in figure 4; “The electric current allocation of the individual charging stations can be dynamically adjusted (either increased or decreased) based on a set of one or more factors (e.g., the number of charging stations requesting electric current allocation, the amount of electric current presently allocated on the electrical circuit, the capacity of the electrical circuit, the amount of electric current requested, and one or more charging session attributes (e.g., charging session duration, the type of account associated with the charging session (e.g., privilege of the account), percentage of charge complete, percentage of charge remaining, battery temperature of the electric vehicle, time remaining on the charging session, priority of the charging session, etc.)).” Paragraph 0049)
transmit an indication of the load shed event to the load management server. (Baxter: see the ack allocation 4.5 as illustrated in figure 4; “After setting the power draw, the charging station 120 transmits a set electric current acknowledgement message to the circuit sharing controller 305 at operation 4.5.” paragraph 0058)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boot, namely, load management based on power transformer information, with the known techniques of Baxter, namely, electric vehicle charging management based on circuit information, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Boot to control loads based on power transformer information with the teachings of Baxter to control vehicle charting based on circuit information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved load management system. In other words, the combination of references provides for a load management system that utilizes transformer information, priority information, and other information based on the teachings of controlling loads based on transformer information in Boot and the teachings of controlling vehicle charging based on priority information and other information in Baxter.
Claim 2:
The cited prior art describes the load management system of claim 1, further comprising:
a service transformer configured to receive power from the utility, (Boot: see the transformer 126 as illustrated in figure 1 and as described in paragraph 0014)
wherein the first controller is further configured to: monitor an amount of power output by the service transformer. (Boot: see the received load information 204 and sum the received load information 206 as illustrated in figure 2; “The controller may also receiver the individual power usage readings for each AMI meter 132. In an example embodiment, the power sum and comparison module 116 may receive readings from each of the AMI meters 132 attached to the transformer 126 and may compute the sum 136 of the power readings.” Paragraph 0015)
Claim 3:
The cited prior art describes the load management system of claim 2, wherein the first controller is further configured to: determine the load shed event when the current power drawn by the plurality of devices exceeds a power threshold. (Boot: “According to an example embodiment, a control command may be sent to one or more electrical vehicle chargers to limit or stop charging if a load associated with the power transformer exceeds a safe operating limit or predetermined limit.” Paragraph 0019; “In an example embodiment, the power sum and comparison module 116 may receive readings from each of the AMI meters 132 attached to the transformer 126 and may compute the sum 136 of the power readings. In an example embodiment, the power sum and comparison module 116 may then compare the sum 136 to the transformer rating information 130 to determine the spare capacity (or lack thereof) associated with the transformer 126.” Paragraph 0015)
Claim 4:
The cited prior art describes the load management system of claim 3, wherein the power threshold is a power rating of the service transformer. (Boot: “receiving power rating information 130 for the at least one power transformer 126” paragraph 0020; “The transformer 126 may be rated with a certain power rating 130.” Paragraph 0014)
Claim 8:
Boot does not explicitly describe priority as described below. However, Baxter teaches the priority as described below.
The cited prior art describes the load management system of claim 1, wherein the user priority indicates an order in which power is reduced to the plurality of devices. (Baxter: see the charging stations 310, 315, 120, 325, 330 as illustrated in figure 3; “In some embodiments, the vehicle operators can also define a privilege or priority level of their request (e.g., charge immediately, charge anytime, etc.) which may affect the cost of that charging session.” Paragraph 0037; “one or more charging session attributes (e.g., charging session duration, the type of account associated with the charging session (e.g., privilege of the account), percentage of charge complete, percentage of charge remaining, battery temperature of the electric vehicle, time remaining on the charging session, priority of the charging session, etc.))” paragraph 0049)
Boot and Baxter are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9:
The cited prior art describes the load management system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of devices includes an electric vehicle. (Boot: “According to an example embodiment, a plug-in electrical vehicle (PEV) or other large load may be detected by monitoring the individual AMI meter load.” Paragraph 0012)
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described above.
16. (Original) A method for controlling power draw from a service transformer, the method comprising:
determining, with a first revenue meter, a user priority of load distribution to a plurality of devices in communication with the first revenue meter;
determining a current power drawn by the plurality of devices;
transmitting, in response to a load shed event and based on the user priority, a load shed command to the plurality of devices indicating a new amount of power to be drawn by the plurality of devices, the new amount of power to be drawn being less than the current power drawn by the plurality of devices, and
transmitting an indication of the load shed event to a load management server associated with the service transformer.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described above.
17. (Original) The method of claim 16, further comprising: determining the load shed event when the current power drawn by the plurality of devices exceeds a power rating of the service transformer.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0073483 (Boot) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0194240 (Baxter) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0145535 (Tyler).
Claim 5:
Boot and Baxter do not explicitly describe a registration message with identification as described below. However, Tyler teaches the registration message with identification as described below.
The cited prior art describes the load management system of claim 1, wherein the first controller is further configured to: transmit a registration message to the load management server, the registration message including an identification number of the first revenue meter. (Tyler: see the vehicle communicates power source identifier and asks for AAA approval 320 as illustrated in figure 3; see the basic vehicle and outlet information is exchanged 903 as illustrated in figure 9A; “At step 320, processor 580 accesses Communication Network 150 (or Power Line Carrier and Electric Grid 160) to communicate with Utility Service Center 100 and register on Grid Home Location Register 120 (or Grid Visitor Location Register 130).” Paragraph 0063) (Baxter: “At operation 4.1, the charging station 120 transmits an electric current allocation request message to the circuit sharing controller 305.” Paragraph 0071)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boot, namely, load management based on power transformer information, with the known techniques of Baxter, namely, electric vehicle charging management based on circuit information, and the known techniques of Tyler, namely, vehicle charging control, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Boot to control loads based on power transformer information with the teachings of Baxter to control vehicle charting based on circuit information and the teachings of Tyler to control vehicle charging and provide for registration within the system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved load management system. In other words, the combination of references provides for a load management system that utilizes transformer information, priority information, and other information and provides for registration based on the teachings of controlling loads based on transformer information in Boot and the teachings of controlling vehicle charging based on priority information and other information in Baxter and the teachings of controlling vehicle charging and providing registration in Tyler.
Claim 18:
Boot and Baxter do not explicitly describe a registration message with identification as described below. However, Tyler teaches the registration message with identification as described below.
The cited prior art describes the method of claim 17, further comprising:
transmitting a registration message to the load management server, the registration message including an identification number of the first revenue meter, and (Tyler: see the vehicle communicates power source identifier and asks for AAA approval 320 as illustrated in figure 3; see the basic vehicle and outlet information is exchanged 903 as illustrated in figure 9A; “At step 320, processor 580 accesses Communication Network 150 (or Power Line Carrier and Electric Grid 160) to communicate with Utility Service Center 100 and register on Grid Home Location Register 120 (or Grid Visitor Location Register 130).” Paragraph 0063) (Baxter: “At operation 4.1, the charging station 120 transmits an electric current allocation request message to the circuit sharing controller 305.” Paragraph 0071)
receiving, from the load management server, configuration information including the power rating of the transformer. (Boot: “receiving power rating information 130 for the at least one power transformer 126” paragraph 0020; “The transformer 126 may be rated with a certain power rating 130.” Paragraph 0014)
Boot, Baxter, and Tyler are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0073483 (Boot) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0194240 (Baxter) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0194814 (Chakraborty).
Claim 6:
Boot and Baxter do not explicitly describe establishing communication among components as described below. However, Chakraborty teaches the establishing communication among components as described below.
The cited prior art describes the load management system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second revenue meter communicatively connected to the load management server, the second revenue meter including a second controller configured to: (Chakraborty: see the MG1 and MG4 as illustrated in figure 3)
transmit a request to the load management server requesting an identification of the first revenue meter, and (Chakraborty: “Both of the communicating microgrids first receive the signal and energy transaction table from utility EMS. The load microgrid (MG 1, in FIG. 3) initiates the communication while the provider microgrid (MG 4, in FIG. 3) is waiting for any load microgrid to send “initiate” signal.” Paragraph 0073) (Baxter: see the request from the station 120 to the controller 305 as illustrated in figure 4)
establish communication with the first revenue meter. (Chakraborty: see the initiate process to check active link from MG1 to MG4 as illustrated in figure 3 and as described in paragraph 0073)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boot, namely, load management based on power transformer information, with the known techniques of Baxter, namely, electric vehicle charging management based on circuit information, and the known techniques of Chakraborty, namely, energy exchange in an electricity distribution system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Boot to control loads based on power transformer information with the teachings of Baxter to control vehicle charting based on circuit information and the teachings of Chakraborty to control energy transfer within a power system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved load management system. In other words, the combination of references provides for a load management system that utilizes transformer information, priority information, and other information and provides for communication among the components based on the teachings of controlling loads based on transformer information in Boot and the teachings of controlling vehicle charging based on priority information and other information in Baxter and the teachings of communicating between components to transfer energy in Chakraborty.
Claim 7:
Boot and Baxter do not explicitly describe sharing power among components as described below. However, Chakraborty teaches the sharing power among components as described below.
The cited prior art describes the
7. (Original) The load management system of claim 6,
wherein the first controller is further configured to: (Chakraborty: see the MG4 as illustrated in figure 3 and as described in paragraph 0073)
receive, from the second revenue meter, a request for power, and (Chakraborty: see the request to receive kWh from MG1 to MG4 as illustrated in figure 3 and as described in paragraph 0073)
transmit a power command to the second revenue meter indicating a permitted amount of power draw. (Chakraborty: see the prepare if energy matches from MG4 to MG1 as illustrated in figure 3 and as described in paragraph 0073)
Boot, Baxter, and Chakraborty are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described above.
19. (Original) The method of claim 16, further comprising:
transmitting, with a second revenue meter, a request to the load management server requesting an identification of the first revenue meter, and
establishing, with the second revenue meter, communication with the first revenue meter.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described above.
20. (Original) The method of claim 19, further comprising:
receiving, with the first revenue meter, a request for power from the second revenue meter, and
transmitting, with the first revenue meter, a power command to the second revenue meter indicating a permitted amount of power draw.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0133693 describes load management for electric vehicle charging.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0241895 describes intelligent load management based on demand response events.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0039514 describes managing demand for electric vehicle charging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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 E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights