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 § 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) 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 2022/0320867) in view of Du et al. (US 2021/0285671)
Re Claims 1, 8, 15; Abe discloses a method, comprising:
selecting which of a first battery (208) in an electric vehicle (200) at a location (at the residential building 100) or a second battery (108) in an energy storage device at the location (100) is to provide energy to an electrical grid (104);
providing energy to an electric grid from the one of the first battery or the second battery that was selected and based on the energy, (Par 0049)
Abe does not disclose adjusting a temperature setpoint of a temperature-controlling device at the location.
Du discloses adjusting a temperature setpoint of a temperature-controlling device at the location. (Par 0085-87, 229).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have added a temperature control to the residential building and control the temperature to a temperature setpoint of a temperature-controlling device at the location in order to regulate the temperature so that the batteries are charged and discharged effectively to provide longevity to the battery.
Re Claims 2, 9 and 16; Abe discloses wherein the energy that is provided to the electrical grid is based on one or more;
an amount of energy provided to the one or more of the first battery or the second battery, a time of day the energy is being provided, an energy demand at the electrical grid, or a source of the energy provided. (Par 0045-7)
Re Claims 5, 6, 12, 13 19, 20 Abe discloses identify one of the first battery and second as highest state of charge battery
providing energy from the highest state of charge battery to the electrical grid in response to a power transfer initiation instruction sent to a power transfer switch
monitoring the state of charge of the highest state of charge battery and
in respond to the state of charge dropping below a threshold, sending power transfer cessation instruction to the power transfer switch to cease providing energy from the highest state of charge battery to electrical grid (Par 0044-8)
Re Claims 7 and 14; Abe in view of Du discloses battery and the second battery.
The combination does not disclose comprising in response to the first battery and the second battery together providing less than a threshold amount of energy, adjusting the temperature setpoint to a higher temperature setting
However, increasing the temperature based on the battery threshold being lower than the temperature setpoint was known and it would have been obvious to have increase the temperature in order to reduce the amount of power consumed so that the battery runs longer.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Du and further in view of Ruppel et al. (US 2024/0116494)
Re Claims 3, 10 and 17; Abe in view of Du discloses comprising maintaining the temperature setpoint as discussed above.
Abe in view of Du does not disclose in response to at least one of a weather condition or a state-of-charge of the at least one or more of the first battery or the second battery.
However, Ruppel discloses in response to at least one of a weather condition or a state-of-charge of the at least one battery. (Par 0053-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have maintaining the temperature setpoint as a state-of-charge of the at least one battery in order to efficiently charge the battery.
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Du and further in view of Rognli et al (US 2014/0096946)
Re Claims 4, 11 and 18; Abe disclosure has been discussed above.
Abe does not disclose identifying a discomfort level of an occupant at the location based on sensor data about the occupant and based on the discomfort level, adjusting the temperature setpoint to reduce the discomfort level.
However, Rognli discloses identifying a discomfort level of an occupant at the location based on sensor data about the occupant and based on the discomfort level, adjusting the temperature setpoint to reduce the discomfort level. (Claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have detected the comfort level and adjust the temperature based on the comfort level in order to provide required comfortability to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, 19, and 20 over ABE in View of DU
A. Applicant’s “piecemeal examination” argument is not persuasive
Applicant contends that the Examiner improperly separated the limitation:
“based on the energy, adjusting a temperature setpoint of a temperature-controlling device at the location” into the components “based on the energy” and “adjusting a temperature setpoint,” rather than considering the claimed relationship as a whole.
The Examiner agrees that the quoted language requires a relationship between the energy provided from the selected battery and the adjustment of the temperature setpoint. The limitation is not being interpreted as merely requiring, independently, some battery-energy operation and some unrelated temperature-setpoint operation.
Nevertheless, Applicant’s reliance on MPEP §2103 does not establish error in the rejection. MPEP §2103 instructs examiners first to identify and evaluate each claim limitation and correlate each limitation with the disclosure, while also requiring that every limitation and the claimed subject matter as a whole ultimately be considered. Thus, explaining which reference supplies particular aspects of a claimed combination is not, by itself, impermissible dissection.
The pertinent question is whether the combined teachings of ABE and DU would have taught or suggested the claimed relationship when the claim is considered as a whole.
As explained below, the rejection does not merely identify an energy transfer in ABE and an unrelated temperature adjustment in DU. Rather, ABE teaches the selection and discharge of one of two battery resources, and DU expressly teaches using battery-power and grid-power variables associated with that discharge operation to determine temperature setpoints. Emphasis added. Accordingly, the combined system includes the claimed functional linkage.
B. ABE teaches selecting and discharging one of the vehicle battery or stationary battery
ABE discloses a grid system having a residential-building storage battery and a vehicle storage battery connected through an intra-regional electric power line. ABE’s HEMS obtains information specifying the electric power stored in both batteries and determines whether the residential-building battery or the vehicle battery should be discharged based on the stored electric power information.
In particular, ABE teaches that: the residential-building storage battery may be discharged and its power transferred through the intra-regional electric power line; the vehicle storage battery may be discharged and its power supplied through the intra-regional electric power line to the residential building; the HEMS acquires information identifying the electric power stored in both the residential-building battery and the vehicle battery; based on that information, the HEMS may request charging of the residential-building battery and discharging of the vehicle battery; and alternatively, the HEMS may request discharging of the residential-building battery and charging of the vehicle battery. See ABE ¶¶ [0036]–[0043].
Thus, ABE provides the claimed foundation of selecting between a battery in an electric vehicle and a battery in a stationary energy-storage device and causing the selected battery to provide electrical energy through the grid-connected electrical system.
C. DU expressly links battery/grid energy variables to temperature setpoints
Applicant argues that DU’s temperature-setpoint determination is unrelated to energy provided from a battery. That characterization does not account for DU’s complete control architecture. DU discloses a predictive controller that jointly controls:
a battery power inverter; the power exchanged at a point of interconnection with an electrical grid; and HVAC equipment serving the location.
DU defines battery power (P_{bat}) as positive when the battery is discharging. DU further explains that positive battery power adds to the power at the point of interconnection. DU’s battery-power setpoint (P_{sp,bat}), when positive, causes the battery-power inverter to discharge the battery and provide power to the point of interconnection. See DU ¶¶ [0075]–[0076]. DU then teaches that the predictive controller determines, at each time step:
an optimal grid-power setpoint (P_{sp,grid}); an optimal battery-power setpoint (P_{sp,bat}), including an amount of power to discharge from the battery; and an optimal campus-power setpoint (P_{sp,campus}). DU’s tracking controller generates temperature setpoints that achieve the optimal power consumption associated with those power setpoints. See DU ¶¶ [0077]–[0079]. DU further states expressly in paragraph [0085] that its tracking controller uses the optimal grid-power, battery-power, and campus-power setpoints to determine optimal temperature setpoints, including a zone-temperature setpoint and a supply-air-temperature setpoint. The relationship is stated even more specifically in DU paragraph [0097]:
the tracking controller uses optimal power setpoints, expressly including the battery-power setpoint and the grid-power setpoint, to determine optimal temperature setpoints.
DU further explains that the tracking controller generates a zone-temperature setpoint and/or supply-air-temperature setpoint predicted to cause the campus to consume the optimal amount of power established by the economic controller. See DU ¶¶ [0096]–[0098].
Accordingly, DU does not merely disclose an unrelated temperature-control function. DU expressly discloses a control dependency in which battery-power and grid-power variables are used to determine the operative temperature setpoints.
D. The combined teachings satisfy the claimed linkage
Under the proposed combination, ABE’s HEMS selects which of the vehicle battery or stationary battery will be discharged. DU’s predictive-control technique is then used to coordinate the selected battery’s discharge, grid power, building power consumption, and HVAC temperature setpoints. Stated differently: ABE determines which battery supplies the energy.
The output of the selected battery becomes the battery-power input or battery-power setpoint used by DU’s controller. DU uses that battery-power variable, together with the corresponding grid-power and building-power variables, to determine the temperature setpoint.
The determined temperature setpoint is communicated to the HVAC controller and becomes the operative temperature setpoint at the location. Thus, in the combined system, adjustment of the temperature setpoint is based on the electrical output associated with the selected battery’s provision of energy through the grid-connected system.
The claim does not require that the provided energy be the sole input used in adjusting the temperature setpoint. Nor does the claim require a particular mathematical relationship, a particular number of degrees of adjustment, or use of a separately measured cumulative kilowatt-hour value. The claim requires only that the adjustment be “based on” the energy. DU’s express use of the battery-power and grid-power setpoints as inputs for determining the temperature setpoint satisfies that relationship.
Moreover, DU’s optimization is performed over discrete time intervals. DU’s cost function uses the amount of battery power discharged during each time step together with the duration of the time step. Consequently, the battery-power variable determines the amount of electrical energy discharged during that interval. See DU ¶¶ [0086]–[0093].
Applicant’s argument that the references fail to disclose any linkage between battery energy and the temperature setpoint is therefore not persuasive.
E. DU’s generation of updated temperature setpoints constitutes “adjusting” the temperature setpoint. Applicant argues that “generating” a setpoint is materially different from “adjusting” a setpoint because generating allegedly creates a target value, while adjusting allegedly requires modifying a preexisting target value.
The Examiner does not agree that claim 1 imposes such a narrow requirement.
During examination, claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claim does not recite:
retrieving a previously stored setpoint; calculating a numerical difference between an old setpoint and a new setpoint; incrementing or decrementing an existing setpoint;
modifying an occupant-entered setpoint; or adjusting the setpoint only after completion of the energy transfer. Nothing in the express claim language limits “adjusting” to the particular sequence proposed by Applicant.
DU’s system does not merely create a single initial setpoint when the system is first installed. DU repeatedly determines optimal power and temperature setpoints at successive time steps based on changing battery, grid, building-load, cost, weather, and operating conditions. DU then provides the newly determined temperature setpoints to local HVAC controllers, which operate the HVAC equipment to achieve those setpoints. See DU ¶¶ [0077]–[0079] and [0093]–[0104].
At a subsequent time step, determination and implementation of a new operative temperature setpoint replaces or updates the previously operative setpoint. Such updating or regulation of the operative temperature setpoint reasonably constitutes “adjusting a temperature setpoint.”
Applicant’s proposed distinction between “generating” and “adjusting” would improperly import into the claim a requirement that the adjustment be expressed as an explicit numerical delta from a separately identified preexisting value. No such requirement appears in claim 1.
Accordingly, DU’s dynamic determination and implementation of temperature setpoints satisfies or, at minimum, would have suggested “adjusting a temperature setpoint.”
F. DU paragraph [0229] is not necessary to establish the claimed energy-based relationship
Applicant correctly observes that the occupant override discussed in DU paragraph [0229] is initiated in response to occupant discomfort. Paragraph [0229], standing alone, is not relied upon as establishing that a temperature setpoint is adjusted based on energy supplied by the selected battery.
To the extent the previous Office Action could be understood as relying on paragraph [0229] for the complete causal limitation, the rejection is clarified.
The relevant disclosure is instead found in DU paragraphs: [0075]–[0079]; [0085]; [0096]–[0103].
Those paragraphs expressly connect battery-power and grid-power setpoints to the determination and implementation of HVAC temperature setpoints.
The Examiner is not proposing that DU’s occupant override be modified so that the occupant requests a temperature change based on battery energy. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that no motivation exists to make such a modification addresses a modification that is not required by, and is not the basis of, the rejection.
G. Motivation to combine ABE and DU
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate DU’s predictive battery/grid/HVAC control technique into ABE’s HEMS.
ABE already provides: a building energy-management controller; a stationary battery;
an electric-vehicle battery; selection between the battery resources; monitoring of the amount of power stored in the respective batteries; and transfer of battery power through a grid-connected electrical line. DU teaches an improvement to a building energy-management controller in which battery discharge, grid interaction, building power consumption, and HVAC temperature setpoints are jointly coordinated to optimize heating or cooling costs and power demand. DU expressly describes controlling both the battery-power inverter and HVAC equipment through the same predictive controller.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply DU’s technique to ABE’s HEMS to: coordinate the flexible HVAC load with the power available from the selected battery;
prevent HVAC demand from unnecessarily counteracting a battery grid-support operation;
reduce grid demand and energy cost; reduce peak power consumption; and
preserve temperature control while the vehicle or stationary battery participates in the energy-transfer operation. The modification would predictably use the selected battery’s discharge power and the resulting grid-power condition as inputs to DU’s existing temperature-setpoint determination. ABE’s battery-selection function would continue to perform its known function, and DU’s predictive temperature-control function would continue to perform its known function. The combination requires implementation of DU’s known control technique in ABE’s known processor-controlled HEMS and does not require a change in the fundamental operating principle of either reference.
A proper obviousness conclusion may be based on combining known elements or applying a known improvement technique where there is an articulated reason for the modification, the functions remain predictable, and a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. An explicit statement in one reference commanding the precise combination is not required.
The motivation therefore arises from the express objectives and teachings of the references themselves, rather than from Applicant’s disclosure.
H. Independent claims 8 and 15
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the same material selecting, energy-providing, and energy-based temperature-setpoint functions in system and computer-readable-medium form.
Applicant states that the claims may have a different scope but does not identify a substantive difference that would cause the foregoing analysis of the corresponding limitations to be inapplicable.
ABE discloses processor-controlled HEMS functionality, including a CPU, ROM, RAM, and stored computer instructions for performing its battery-selection and power-transfer operations. See ABE ¶¶ [0050]–[0051]. DU likewise discloses a processing circuit having a processor and memory storing instructions for performing its predictive battery/grid/HVAC control operations. See DU ¶¶ [0080]–[0085].
For the reasons provided above, the corresponding limitations of claims 8 and 15 would have been obvious over ABE in view of DU. Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 8 and 15 are therefore not persuasive.
I. Dependent claims 2, 5–7, 9, 12–14, 16, 19, and 20
Applicant does not present a separate argument directed to the additional limitations of claims 2, 5–7, 9, 12–14, 16, 19, and 20. Instead, Applicant relies exclusively on the alleged deficiency concerning the independent claims.
Because ABE and DU, as combined, teach or suggest the disputed limitation of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasons explained above, Applicant’s derivative argument does not identify an error in the rejections of the dependent claims.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over ABE in view of DU is maintained.
II. Rejection of Claims 3, 10, and 17 over ABE and DU in View of RUPPEL.
Applicant argues only that RUPPEL does not cure the alleged deficiencies of ABE and DU concerning the independent claims.
RUPPEL is not relied upon to cure the disputed limitation:
“based on the energy, adjusting a temperature setpoint of a temperature-controlling device at the location.”
As explained above, that limitation is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of ABE and DU. RUPPEL is relied upon for the additional subject matter recited in claims 3, 10, and 17 concerning maintaining the temperature-control condition in response to an environmental or battery-related condition.
Therefore, Applicant’s assertion that RUPPEL fails to cure a deficiency in ABE and DU is not persuasive because the asserted deficiency has not been established. Applicant presents no separate argument identifying error in the findings concerning the additional limitations for which RUPPEL was applied.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over ABE and DU in view of RUPPEL is maintained.
III. Rejection of Claim 4 over ABE and DU in View of ROGNLI.
As an initial matter, Applicant’s argument states that “Claim 3 depends from claim 1.” The rejection addressed in this section concerns claim 4, which depends from claim 1.
Applicant again argues only that ROGNLI does not cure the alleged deficiencies of ABE and DU concerning the independent claim.
ROGNLI is not relied upon to provide the energy-based relationship of claim 1. That relationship is taught or suggested by ABE and DU for the reasons explained above. ROGNLI is relied upon for the additional occupant-discomfort and sensor-responsive control limitations of claim 4.
ROGNLI discloses sensing a comfort indicator at a facility, including at least air temperature and, in some embodiments, relative humidity; determining whether the sensed comfort condition exceeds a discomfort threshold; and modifying an HVAC load-control event in response to the sensed comfort indicator to improve occupant comfort.
Applicant does not separately dispute the findings concerning ROGNLI’s sensed comfort indicator, discomfort threshold, or responsive modification of HVAC operation. Instead, Applicant relies solely on the alleged deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Because that alleged deficiency is not established, Applicant’s derivative argument concerning claim 4 is not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over ABE and DU in view of ROGNLI is maintained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (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 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
07/29/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights