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 Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Remove bullet points from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10
The claim is incomplete and improper English and should read “A microgrid comprising…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4, 8, 9, and 12 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.
Regarding Claim 4, 9, and 12
The term “and/or” is confusing and unclear. It is unclear whether “and” or “or” is intended and it is noted that the two terms (“and” and “or”) having different meanings making it imperative to know which term is intended in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim. Applicant is advised to select EITHER “and” or “or”, but not both. The claim will be examined as best understood wherein “and/or” is taken to mean “or”.
The claim will be examined as best understood as “and”.
Regarding Claim 8
The claim limitation “wherein the battery energy storage system is operated in a grid-forming mode or a virtual synchronous generator mode” is unintelligible since said “modes” have not been defined, making it unclear what method steps are intended to be added to the claim.
Regarding Claim 9
The claim limitation ‘”wherein the battery energy storage system is operated in a grid-tie mode or a virtual synchronous generator mode while the circuit breaker and/or the switching device are maintained closed and the microgrid is operated in a grid connected mode” is unintelligible since said “modes” have not been defined, making it unclear what method steps are intended to be added to the claim.
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s) 8 and 9, it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips US 2022/0123532.
Phillips teaches:
1. Method for controlling a microgrid, the microgrid comprising a circuit breaker (Main Breaker, 103, FIG1), a first busbar (busbar of lower panel 102A, see FIG1) being configured to be connected to a utility grid (via utility meter, FIG1) through the circuit breaker, several distributed energy resources including at least a battery energy storage system (battery 120), a second busbar (second busbar of upper panel, 102B), a switching device relay of 116), a microgrid controller (associated output circuitry of 121, see outage signal, FIG1), non-critical loads (ie standard loads 108A) and critical loads (critical loads 108B), the second busbar being connected to the first busbar though the switching device, the critical loads and the battery energy storage system being connected to the second busbar (see FIG1), the method comprising the steps of:
maintaining the switching device and the circuit breaker closed, the microgrid being operated in a grid connected mode (see spec @ [0043], “no outage” mode);
measuring a voltage present in the microgrid (voltage as detected by outage detector [0047]);
determining if the measured voltage corresponds to a loss of voltage or a fault in the microgrid ([0047]); and . if the loss of voltage or fault is detected in the microgrid, opening the switching device (opens relay 118, [0047]), the critical loads being supplied by the battery energy storage system and the circuit breaker remaining closed during at least a fault ride through period (noting that Main Breaker remains closed “fault ride through period” reading on power outage as there is no fault to trip the breaker from the utility side so it does not open).
2. Method according to claim 1, wherein the voltage present in the microgrid is measured by means of a voltage measuring device which determines if the measured voltage correspond to a loss of voltage (read on by the outage detector measuring means 114A’, 112A’ [0047]).
6. Method according to claim 1, wherein the fault ride through period is longer than the opening time of the circuit breaker (as is the case when said circuit breaker is not tripped).
10. Microgrid comprising a circuit breaker (main breaker 103), a first busbar (lower busbar of 104A, 106A, FIG1) being configured to be connected to a utility grid through the circuit breaker (via labeled “UTILITY METER”), several distributed energy resources including at least a battery energy storage system (battery of 120), a second busbar (104B, 106B), a switching device, (switch of 116) a microgrid controller (control circuitry of outage signal, FIGURE 1), non-critical loads (see connections of 108A) and critical loads (See connections of 108B), the second busbar being connected to the first busbar though the switching device, the critical loads and the battery energy storage system being connected to the second busbar, the microgrid being configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (See FIG1).
11.Microgrid according to claim 10, further comprising a voltage measuring device (measuring means of 121) connected to the microgrid controller (output “outage signal means” of “outage signal”), the voltage measuring device being configured to determine if the measured voltage correspond to a loss of voltage (See [0047]).
12.Microgrid according to claim 10, further comprising a protective relay configured to detect the fault and/or the loss of voltage in the microgrid and to open the circuit breaker after the fault and/or the loss of voltage is detected.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips US 2022/0123532 in view of Zietlow et al. US 2024/0396324.
Phillips teaches use of a relay breaker however fails to teach:
13. Microgrid according to claim 10, wherein the switching device is a static switch or hybrid breaker.
Zietlow teaches use of a hybrid breaker (See Specifiation @ [0063]).
It would have been obvious to use a hybrid breaker as taught by Zietlow in place of the standard relay of Phillips with the motivation of the hybrid breaker low on-resistance, fast actuation time, and extremely small size (See Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and claims 4 and 12, 112 issues corrected as interpreted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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 CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836