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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 11/28/2024 has been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 127 describes “when the reverse power flow power generates by applying the second control to the first distributed power supply, the lower management server 200 may control an apparatus installed in any facility that belongs to the first facility group, assuming the forward power flow decreased by applying the second control”.
Paragraph 170 describes “when reverse power flow power generates by applying the second control to the first distributed power supply, the controller controls an apparatus installed in any facility belonging to the first facility group, assuming forward power flow decreased by applying the second control”.
These descriptions are generally grammatically unclear and confusingly worded. For instance, it is unclear how forward power flow is decreased by applying the second control.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is 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.
The grammar of the claim is generally confusing to the point of rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
The limitations will be interpreted to recite “when a reverse power flow is generated by applying the second control to the first power supply, control an apparatus installed in any facility that belongs to the first facility group by applying the second control”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it describes “A program that causes a computer to perform” without specifying that the program is stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. While it is recognized that paragraph 161 of the specification states that “The program may be recorded in a computer-readable medium” and that “the computer readable medium on which the program is recorded may be a non-transitory recording medium”, this does not explicitly exclude transitory signals (aka “software per se”).
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, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120245744 A1 to Prosser et al. (herein "Prosser") in light of US 20190181681 A1 to Okino.
Regarding claim 1, Prosser teaches a power management apparatus (abstract “systems”), comprising:
a manager configured to manage two or more facilities connected to a power system (Paragraph 15 “In some embodiments of the invention, multiple power management systems are installed at multiple sites and connected through a network to a controller that manages the multiple systems remotely”) and
a controller (Paragraph 30 “system controller 7”) configured to control a distributed power supply installed in each of the two or more facilities (Paragraph 13 “A localized network of energy storage devices and/or energy generation devices, which devices are connected to loads”), wherein
into the distribution grid to reduce demand in the area”, Paragraph 43 “As power supply levels are monitored, the controller determines whether the power supply has receded below the minimum supply threshold value 32. If it has receded below that value, the controller directs the storage system to supply power to the load 33”), and
Prosser does not explicitly teach applying a first control and applying a second control.
Okino teaches applying a first control and applying a second control (Paragraph 36 “The communicator 410 transmits a power control message including at least one of a power supply control message, a power flow control message, and a reverse power flow control message”, Paragraph 52 “In step S13, the EMS 200A and the EMS 200D control the power flow amount or the reverse power flow amount depending on the power control message” where the power flow control message and reverse power flow control message are clearly distinct).
While Okino does not specifically teach applying the first control to a distributed power supply installed in a first facility group and the second control to a second distributed power supply installed in a second facility group, Prosser teaches a plurality of facilities. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of applying a first or second control is applicable to any number of facilities operating in parallel.
Both Prosser and Okino are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Prosser with the system of Okino in order to more appropriately control for reverse power flow (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Prosser and Okino teaches the power management apparatus according to claim 1.
Prosser also teaches a distributed power supply in which the reverse power flow is not allowed (Paragraph 43 “If the power supply has not receded below the threshold value in 32, the controller determines whether the storage system charge is below a maintenance charge level 35. If it is not, it continues monitoring power supplied from the grid without charging the storage system 31”, Fig. 3 wherein it is clear that there are situations where the reverse power flow (the discharging of the storage) is not permitted).
Prosser does not specifically teach applying the first control to a third distributed power supply where the reverse power flow is not allowed.
Okino also teaches applying the first control (Paragraph 36 “power flow control message”).
While Okino does not specifically teach applying the first control to a third distributed power supply in which the reverse power flow is not allowed, Prosser teaches a plurality of facilities and a case where reverse power flow is not assumed (see claim 1 analysis). It is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of applying the first control is applicable to any number of facilities operating in parallel. Additionally, it is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of applying the first control is applicable to a power supply where the reverse power flow is not allowed, as there is no functional difference between a situation where a reverse power flow is allowed but not occurring (assumed) and where a reverse power flow is not allowed.
Regarding claim 6, Prosser teaches the power management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first distributed power supply comprises a power storage apparatus (Paragraph 15 “batteries or other energy storage”).
Regarding claim 7, Prosser teaches a power management method (Paragraph 16 “method”), comprising:
managing two or more facilities connected to a power system (Paragraph 15 “In some embodiments of the invention, multiple power management systems are installed at multiple sites and connected through a network to a controller that manages the multiple systems remotely”) and
controlling a distributed power supply installed in each of the two or more facilities (Paragraph 13 “A localized network of energy storage devices and/or energy generation devices, which devices are connected to loads”), wherein
the controlling comprises:
plant as often as desired. The power plant that supplied the charging energy to the batteries may be a conventional fossil-fuel burning or nuclear power plant” where a power plant is generally assumed to always be supplying power to the grid).
Prosser does not explicitly teach applying a first control and applying a second control .
Okino teaches applying a first control and applying a second control (Paragraph 36 “The communicator 410 transmits a power control message including at least one of a power supply control message, a power flow control message, and a reverse power flow control message”, Paragraph 52 “In step S13, the EMS 200A and the EMS 200D control the power flow amount or the reverse power flow amount depending on the power control message” where the power flow control message and reverse power flow control message are clearly distinct).
While Okino does not specifically teach applying the first control to a distributed power supply installed in a first facility group and the second control to a second distributed power supply installed in a second facility group, Prosser teaches a plurality of facilities. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of applying a first or second control is applicable to any number of facilities operating in parallel.
Both Prosser and Okino are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Prosser with the system of Okino in order to more appropriately control for reverse power flow (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 8, Prosser teaches a program that causes a computer to perform (Paragraph 71 “Some methods and systems of the embodiments of the invention disclosed herein may also be embodied as a computer-readable medium containing instructions to complete those methods or implement those systems”):
managing two or more facilities connected to a power system (Paragraph 15 “In some embodiments of the invention, multiple power management systems are installed at multiple sites and connected through a network to a controller that manages the multiple systems remotely”) and
controlling a distributed power supply installed in each of the two or more facilities (Paragraph 13 “A localized network of energy storage devices and/or energy generation devices, which devices are connected to loads”), wherein
the controlling comprises:
Prosser does not explicitly teach applying a first control and applying a second control.
Okino teaches applying a first control and applying a second control (Paragraph 36 “The communicator 410 transmits a power control message including at least one of a power supply control message, a power flow control message, and a reverse power flow control message”, Paragraph 52 “In step S13, the EMS 200A and the EMS 200D control the power flow amount or the reverse power flow amount depending on the power control message” where the power flow control message and reverse power flow control message are clearly distinct).
While Okino does not specifically teach applying the first control to a distributed power supply installed in a first facility group and the second control to a second distributed power supply installed in a second facility group, Prosser teaches a plurality of facilities. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle applying a first or second control is applicable to any number of facilities operating in parallel.
Both Prosser and Okino are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Prosser with the system of Okino in order to more appropriately control for reverse power flow (Paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser in light of Okino, further in light of US 20190157877 A1 to Nakamura, further in light of US 20150127185 A1 to Behrangrad.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Prosser and Okino teaches the power management apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Prosser and Okino does not teach wherein
the controller applies the second control to the first distributed power supply when a total allocated reduced-power of the two or more facilities is less than a target reduced power even when the first control is applied to the first distributed power supply and the second control is applied to the second distributed power supply.
Nakamura teaches applying the second control to a distributed power supply upon receiving a command to decrease forward power flow (Paragraph 55 “Specifically, the EMS 160 transmits the permission message to the storage battery 120 which operates in a first state in which the reverse power flow is not permitted, the permission message permitting the storage battery 120 to operate in a second state in which the reverse power flow is permitted”, Paragraph 56 “For example, if the forward power flow amount suppression message is received from the external server 400, the EMS 160 may transmit the permission message to the PCS 130”).
While Nakamura does not specifically teach applying the second control to the first distributed power supply when a total allocated reduced power of the two or more facilities is less than a target reduced power, Prosser teaches a plurality of facilities. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of engaging reverse power flow in order to decrease forward power flow is applicable to any number of facilities in any combination of modes.
Both Prosser and Nakamura are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Prosser with the system of Nakamura in order to control also set limits to deactivate reverse power flow at an appropriate time (Paragraph 9 “The controller is further configured to switch the operation of the second state to the operation of the first state, even when switching from the operation of the second state to the operation of the first state is not instructed, if a predetermined condition is satisfied”)
However, Nakamura does not teach switching modes in order to reduce power consumption below a specified threshold.
Behrangrad teaches switching modes in order to reduce power consumption below a specified threshold (Paragraph 36 “the power supply-demand control method may further include suppressing power consumption of the consumer below a power consumption level prior to a start of the supply-demand adjustment period by starting the supply-demand adjustment period and changing an operation mode of the electric equipment”).
While Behrangrad does not specifically teach applying the second control of Okino to the first distributed power supply when a total allocated reduced-power of the two or more facilities is less than a target reduced power, Prosser teaches a plurality of facilities and Nakamura teaches controlling power supply in response to an instruction to reduce power consumption. It is the examiner’s interpretation that applying the second control in this circumstance merely describes changing operational modes in order to reduce power consumption further to a reduced level. Though Behrangrad does not teach a plurality of facilities or a change in power supply, it is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of switching modes to reduce power consumption below a threshold level is applicable to a change in power supply and any number of facilities in any combination of modes.
Both Prosser and Behrangrad are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Prosser with the system of Behrangrad in order to avoid adverse effects on other consumers (Paragraph 57 “Since an upper limit is set on the power consumption of the first consumer in this way, the adverse effect on the other consumers is reduced”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Prosser, Okino, Nakamura, and Behrangrad teaches the power management apparatus according to claim 2.
Prosser does not teach wherein when reverse power flow power generates by applying the second control to the first distributed power supply, the controller controls an apparatus installed in any facility belonging to the first facility group, assuming forward power flow decreased by applying the second control.
Okino also teaches controlling an apparatus in a facility, assuming reverse power flow is applied by the second control (Paragraph 22 “The storage battery 120 is an apparatus that stores the power. The storage battery 120 outputs the stored DC power. In the embodiment, the storage battery 120 may be a distributed power supply”, Paragraph 33 “The reverse power flow control message may be considered as an output control message for instructing output control of the distributed power supply”).
While Okino does not specifically teach wherein reverse power flow generates by applying the second control to the first distributed power supply and assuming forward power flow decreased by applying the second control, Nakamura teaches switching a facility to reverse power flow in order to reduce forward power flow. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of controlling an apparatus in a facility in accordance with an overall control can be applied to any sort of control.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser in light of Okino, further in light of US 20110106321 A1 to Cherian et al.
The combination of Prosser and Okino teaches the power management apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Prosser and Okino does not teach wherein the first control is control to cause the distributed power supply to autonomously operate, and
the second control is control to cause the controller to sequentially operate the distributed power supply.
Cherian teaches wherein a first control is control to cause the distributed power supply to autonomously operate (Paragraph 59 “According to the present invention, each regional control module using one or more applications is operable to autonomously manage the power distribution and production within its region. Autonomous operation can also be in island mode where the management of grid frequency and voltage are performed at a fast enough rate to accomplish safe grid operations” where when the region is islanded it is not feeding power back to the wider grid), and
the second control is control to cause the controller to sequentially operate the distributed power (Paragraph 19 “The distributed control system has three primary layers: i) enterprise control module, ii) regional control modules, and iii) local control modules. An enterprise control module is communicatively coupled to existing supervisory control and data acquisition systems, and to a plurality of regional control modules”, Paragraph 22 “In addition, the enterprise control module can receive data regarding each regional control module's ability to produce excess power in relation to its local consumer demand. The enterprise control module can issue commands to one or more regional control modules to increase power production or decrease consumption as well as reroute excess power” where it is clear that the enterprise control module makes decisions based on received data (feedback) from the controlled regional control modules).
Both Prosser and Cherian are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing power. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Prosser with the system of Cherian in order to (Paragraph 84 “The ability of the present system to manage resources and make them available individually, in pools, or as virtualized resources to applications for optimally utilizing them for various functions is a significant advantage over prior systems”).
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
/Christopher E. Everett/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights