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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 11/22/2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-21 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the instant case:
1)-. In claim 1: There is a singular/plural mismatch issue: The claim first introduces "a plurality of radio base stations, RBSs" and later refers to "the RBS" (singular) before stating it is connected to "a respective plurality of backup battery units associated with the RBS". This creates confusion over whether each individual RBS has multiple battery units or if the plurality of batteries is distributed across multiple stations. The claim language must inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The shifting between singular and plural forms makes the structural relationship between the base stations and their backup power units unclear.
1.1)-. Claim 1 contains purely functional language limits: The final limitations rely heavily on broad functional results ("configured to cause a RBS to modify its power consumption”), without reciting specific structural communication protocols or hardware controls.
Accordingly, Appropriated correction is required.
2)-. In claim 7: The claim introduces "a radio base station, RBS" in the preamble, but later refers to "the radio stations" in the transitional phrase without a proper plural antecedent. In other words, the claim switches from a singular "radio base station, RBS" to a plural "radio stations," making it unclear if the limitations apply to a single RBS or multiple radio stations.
2.1)-. Claim 7 scope is confused because it is vague whether the processing circuitry belongs to the single RBS introduced earlier or if "the radio stations" implies a broader or shifting claim scope.
Accordingly, Appropriated correction is required.
3)-. In claim 12: In the final step, the term "a RBS" appears in "cause a RBS to modify its power consumption." The claim refers to "the primary subset of the plurality of RBSs" and "at least one of the primary subset." It is vague whether" a RBS" means any single RBS from the primary subset, a specific RBS from the activation signal, or an unspecified unit from either subset.
3.1)-. Claim 12 recites "causing transmission of synchronization signals with operational settings" (plural), but later refers to modifying power consumption "based on the synchronization signal" (singular). This creates ambiguity about whether it refers to one of the previously recited signals or a new signal.
3.2)-. Claim 12 has a confusing Scope for standby units: The claim details sending an activation signal to "at least one of the primary subset," but does not clearly define what action the "standby subset" takes during this activation period if a failure does not occur, or how the standby unit's pre-configured role ties into the active signal step.
3.3)-. Claim 12 recites the phrase "configured to cause a RBS to modify its power consumption based on the synchronization signal" borders on functional claiming without reciting clear structural boundaries for how the signal achieves this modification at the RBS.
3.4)-. Claim 12 recites the phrase "configured to cause a RBS to modify its power consumption based on the synchronization signal", that borders on functional claiming without reciting clear structural boundaries for how the signal achieves this modification at the RBS.
Accordingly, Appropriated correction is required.
4)-. In claim 18, The claim recites "during an activation period, receiving an activation signal..." but later uses the definite article without a clear prior introduction of a specific defined period, or it relies on the activation signal to define it. Ensure the specification clearly provides bounds for this period.
4.1)-. Claim 18 lacks clarity in the phrase "configured to cause the RBS to modify its power consumption based on the synchronization signal in response to the activation signal" stacks multiple conditional relationships. It borders on a lack of distinctness if the interaction between the synchronization settings and the activation signal overlaps ambiguously.
4.2)-. Claim 18 recites in the preamble “the RBS configured to be switchable," while the body recites active method steps of receiving and modifying power. However, the capability language in the preamble obscures active steps because there is no actual “switching step” in the body to support the preamble.
Accordingly, Appropriated correction is required.
5)-. Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 19-22 these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1, 7, 12, and 18 and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alaperä et al (NPL “Usage of telecommunication base station batteries in demand response for frequency containment disturbance reserve: Motivation, background and pilot results” – 2017 – from IDS), hereinafter “Alaperä”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 12 and 18, Alaperä discloses (claim 1) a management node / (claim 7) the associated radio base station / (claim 12) the associated method implemented by a management node / (claim 18) the associated method implemented by a radio base station, configured to communicate with a power grid operator and with a plurality of radio base stations, RBSs ("To create a regulating effect of significant level, multiple base stations need to be bundled together. This can be done by aggregating a centrally controlled fleet of base stations […] Performing demand response operations with such an aggregate requires a platform to handle the algorithms, logic and measurements, that are used to determine the current balancing power, bid that power to the balancing markets and to dispatch resources based on grid frequency and bid acceptance. Required interconnections are clarified in Fig. 5.", figure 5, page 225, Section III.A), each of the plurality of RBSs configured to be switchable between power from a power grid and power from a respective plurality of backup battery units associated with the RBS ("From demand response's point of view, base stations can be considered as controllable loads. The rectifier can be controlled to limit the energy consumption from the grid and instead feed the loads with the backup energy stored in the batteries", page 224, Section III.C),
PNG
media_image1.png
602
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the management node is configured to:
determine a primary subset of the plurality of RBSs to participate in at least one Frequency Containment Reserve, FCR, event occurring over a predefined time interval; determine a standby subset of the plurality of RBSs that are each configured to participate in the at least one FCR event in place of a failure of a respective one of the primary subset of the plurality of RBSs ("Simulation loops through each input data frequency value (one frequency value per five seconds) and the algorithm assigns a state for each battery system in the aggregate, these states are: idle (battery system in float charge), recharge, holdSoC (not charging nor discharging) and discharge", page 226, Section IV.B);
cause transmission of synchronization signals with operational settings to the primary and standby subsets of the plurality of RBSs, the operational settings being associated with participating in the at least one FCR event ("By setting these states the algorithm adjusts the activated reserve power to match the frequency deviation to simulate an upwards regulating effect”, page 226, Section IV.B); and
during an activation period, cause transmission of an activation signal to at least one of the primary subset of the plurality of RBSs, the activation signal being configured to cause a RBS to modify its power consumption based on the synchronization signal to participate in the at least one FCR event ("Algorithm is designed to cycle the batteries to balance the number, length and depth of the discharges for each battery system in the aggregate", page 226, Section IV.B).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Alaperä discloses, wherein the at least one FCR event corresponds to a plurality of FCR events occurring over the predefined time interval; a first portion of the primary subset of the plurality of RBSs being scheduled to participate in a first FCR event of the plurality of FCR events; and a second portion of the primary subset of the plurality of RBSs being scheduled to participate in a second FCR event of the plurality of FCR events, the first portion of the primary subset of the plurality of RBSs being different from the second portion (see page 226, Section IV.B).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Alaperä discloses, wherein the RBS is part of one of the primary subset and standby subsets of the plurality of RBSs (see page 226, Section IV.B).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Alaperä discloses, wherein the activation signal indicates an FCR-Down event for the RBS to participate in, the modifying of the power consumption by the RBS including reducing the power used from the power grid by the RBS (see page 224, Section III.C).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Alaperä discloses, wherein the activation signal indicates an FCR-Up event for the RBS to participate in, the modifying of the power consumption by the RBS including increasing the power used from the power grid by the RBS by, at least in part, charging at least one of the plurality of backup battery units (see page 226, Section IV.B).
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears claims 2-5, 11, 13-16, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, however, further search and consideration may be required upon the submission of claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
1-. US 20180302804 to Eleftheriadis et al- relates to methods and radio base station of a wireless telecommunications network. The radio base station comprises power feed circuitry for providing electric power from an external power feed to the radio base station, which is adapted to be driven in either internal power feed mode by an internal power feed or an external power feed mode by said external power feed providing unstable electric power due to disturbances in the electric power.
2.- US 20100217550 to Crabtree et al - a modeling server coupled to the communications interface; and a statistics server coupled to the event database and the modeling server; wherein the modeling server, on receiving a request to establish an allocation of at least one of transmission losses, distribution losses, and ancillary services to a specific sink iNode, computes at least one virtual path for flow of electricity between a source iNode and the specific sink iNode; and wherein the modeling server further computes, for each transmission or distribution iNode included in the computed virtual path, at least one energy loss and allocates a portion thereof to the specific sink iNode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights