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 .
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-5, 10-13, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-12, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,916. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
App. No. 18/935328
U.S. Patent No. 12,142,916
Analysis
Claims 2, 10, 18
Claims 1, 11
Substantially Similar
Claims 3, 11, 19
Claims 7, 19
Substantially Similar
Claims 4, 12
Claims 2, 12
Substantially Similar
Claims 5, 13, 20
Claims 5, 17
Substantially Similar
Claims 6-9, 14-17, and 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,916 in view of the references as described below.
App. No. 18/935328
U.S. Patent No. 12,142,916
Analysis
Claims 6, 14, 21
Claims 1, 11
In view of Krajewski (see rejection of claims 14 and 21 below)
Claims 7, 15, 22
Claims 1, 11
In view of Paruchuri (see rejection of claims 15 and 22 below)
Claims 8, 16, 23
Claims 1, 11
In view of Paruchuri (see rejection of claims 16 and 23 below)
Claims 9, 17, 24
Claims 1, 11
In view of Lee (see rejection of claims 17 and 24 below)
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 10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0056285 (Krajewski) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0289248 (Lee) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 10:
The cited prior art describes a computer implemented method, comprising: (Krajewski: “The present invention generally relates to the field of networked computerized process control systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to supervisory process control and manufacturing information systems. Such systems generally execute above a control layer in a process control system to provide guidance to lower level control elements such as, by way of example, programmable logic controllers.” Paragraph 0001)
Krajewski does not explicitly describe an energy management system as described below. However, Lee teaches the energy management system as described below.
directly controlling, via an energy management system comprising one or more processing devices, a first electronic control device in communication with a first power plant apparatus using a first instantiation of a first hardware interface module stored in computer readable memory; (Krajewski: “In the illustrative embodiment set forth in FIG. 1, the PCs 100 and 102 execute data access servers 116 and 118 respectively. The data access servers 116 and 118 obtain/extract process information provided by the PLC 112 and provide the process information to application objects (e.g., PLC1Network, PLC1, PLC1Network', PLC1') of the application comprising portions 104 and 106.” Paragraph 0030; “The application objects 210 include a wide variety of objects that execute business logic facilitating carrying out a particular process control operation (e.g., turning a pump on, actuating a valve), and/or information gathering/management function (e.g., raising an alarm based upon a received field device output signal value) in the context of, for example, an industrial process control system. Examples of process control (automation) application objects include analog input, discrete device, and PID loop objects.” Paragraph 0044) (Lee: “Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4, the first energy management server 10 may be in an enable state, collect data from the power system 30 (S1).” Paragraph 0095)
deploying a first instantiation of a second hardware interface module at a second electronic control device in communication with a second power plant apparatus, wherein the second hardware interface module is configured to control of the second power plant apparatus; (see the control software in Krawjewski and the power system in Lee) (Krajewski: see the AppEngine1 and application objects on PC 100 as illustrated in figure 1 and as described in paragraphs 0029, 0030) (Lee: “Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4, the first energy management server 10 may be in an enable state, collect data from the power system 30 (S1).” Paragraph 0095)
detecting that the first instantiation of the second hardware interface module at the second electronic control device has failed; and (Krajewski: “Upon detection of a failure of the current active application engine, the standby engine (e.g., AppEngine 1' on PC 102) becomes the active engine and performs the tasks associated with hosting the application objects on the fail-over enabled application engine pair.” Paragraph 0035; “In an embodiment of the present invention, PC 102 provides fail-over support for PC 100. By way of example, fail-over support occurs at the application engine level (e.g., AppEngine 1 and AppEngine 1'). Thus, when AppEngine 1 on PC 100 fails/shuts down, AppEngine 1' (having a same assigned reference name as AppEngine 1 in the global name table 125) on PC 102 is configured to take over responsibilities (e.g., hosting application objects) previously assigned to AppEngine 1.” Paragraph 0034)
at least partly in response to detecting that the first instantiation of the second hardware interface module at the second electronic control device has failed, (Krajewski: “Upon detection of a failure of the current active application engine, the standby engine (e.g., AppEngine 1' on PC 102) becomes the active engine and performs the tasks associated with hosting the application objects on the fail-over enabled application engine pair.” Paragraph 0035; “In an embodiment of the present invention, PC 102 provides fail-over support for PC 100. By way of example, fail-over support occurs at the application engine level (e.g., AppEngine 1 and AppEngine 1'). Thus, when AppEngine 1 on PC 100 fails/shuts down, AppEngine 1' (having a same assigned reference name as AppEngine 1 in the global name table 125) on PC 102 is configured to take over responsibilities (e.g., hosting application objects) previously assigned to AppEngine 1.” Paragraph 0034)
execute a second instantiation of the second hardware interface module to control the second power plant apparatus via a network interface. (Krajewski: see the AppEngine1’ in the Application Server2 PC 102 as illustrated in figure 1; “Upon detection of a failure of the current active application engine, the standby engine (e.g., AppEngine 1' on PC 102) becomes the active engine and performs the tasks associated with hosting the application objects on the fail-over enabled application engine pair.” Paragraph 0035; “In an embodiment of the present invention, PC 102 provides fail-over support for PC 100. By way of example, fail-over support occurs at the application engine level (e.g., AppEngine 1 and AppEngine 1'). Thus, when AppEngine 1 on PC 100 fails/shuts down, AppEngine 1' (having a same assigned reference name as AppEngine 1 in the global name table 125) on PC 102 is configured to take over responsibilities (e.g., hosting application objects) previously assigned to AppEngine 1.” Paragraph 0034)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Krajewski, namely, configuring redundancy in a process control system, with the known techniques of Lee, namely, redundancy in an energy management system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Krajewski to provide redundant applications for a process control system with the teachings of Lee to provide redundant controllers for an energy management system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved energy management system (i.e., utilizing various redundancy mechanisms for controllers with memory in an energy management system of Krajewski based on the teachings of redundant controllers in an energy management system in Lee).
Claim 13:
The cited prior art describes the computer implemented as defined in Claim 10, the method further comprising maintaining the second instantiation of the second hardware interface module in hot standby or on-demand mode. (Krajewski: see the standby – ready state 904 as illustrated in figure 9 and as described in paragraphs 0094, 0095)
Claim 14:
The cited prior art describes the computer implemented as defined in Claim 10, wherein the first electronic control device comprises a first server and the second electronic control device comprises a second server. (Krajewski: “With continued reference to FIG. 1, a first application server personal computer (PC) 100 and a second application server PC 102 collectively and cooperatively execute a redundant distributed multi-layered supervisory process control and manufacturing information application comprising a first portion 104 and second portion 106.” paragraph 0026)
Claim 17:
Krajewski does not explicitly describe an energy management system as described below. However, Lee teaches the energy management system as described below.
The cited prior art describes computer implemented as defined in Claim 10, the method further comprising mirroring data from the energy management system to a remote energy management system. (Lee: “a duplex controller configured to selectively receive the first data and the dynamic data or the static data to synchronize with another energy management server.” Paragraph 0010; “As a preferred embodiment, the duplex controller 4 may receive synchronization data from data stored in the memory database 8 to transmit them to another energy management server 10, thereby performing a synchronization.” Paragraph 0046)
Krajewski and Lee are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 18:
Krajewski does not explicitly describe an energy management system as described below. However, Lee teaches the energy management system as described below.
The cited prior art describes an offsite energy management system configured to manage a plurality of remote energy generating plants, comprising: (Lee: “According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided an energy management server, including a controller configured to process first data collected from a power system into a second data; a memory database unit configured to classify the second data into dynamic data and static data according to an established data classification to store the dynamic and static data; and a duplex controller configured to selectively receive the first data and the dynamic data or the static data to synchronize with another energy management server.” Paragraph 0010) (Krajewski: “The present invention generally relates to the field of networked computerized process control systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to supervisory process control and manufacturing information systems. Such systems generally execute above a control layer in a process control system to provide guidance to lower level control elements such as, by way of example, programmable logic controllers.” Paragraph 0001)
at least one processing device; (Krajewski: “With continued reference to FIG. 1, a first application server personal computer (PC) 100 and a second application server PC 102 collectively and cooperatively execute a redundant distributed multi-layered supervisory process control and manufacturing information application comprising a first portion 104 and second portion 106.” Paragraph 0026; “The data buffers of the data access servers 116 and 118 are accessed by a variety of application objects 105 and 107 executing upon the personal computers 100 and 102.” Paragraph 0027)
a network interface; and ; (Krajewski: “In the exemplary system embodying the present invention, the multi-layered application comprising portions 104 and 106 is communicatively linked to a controlled process. In particular, the first application server personal computer 100 and the second application server personal computer 102 are communicatively coupled to a first programmable logic controller 112 via a plant floor network 115. It is noted that the depicted connections from the PCs 100 and 102 to the PLC 112 via plant floor network 115 represent logical connections. Such logical connections correspond to both direct and indirect physical communication links. For example, in a particular embodiment, the PLC 112 comprises a node on an Ethernet LAN to which the personal computers 100 and 102 are also connected. In other embodiments, the PLC 112 is linked directly to physical communication ports on the PCs 100 and 102.” Paragraph 0029)
computer readable memory that stores instructions that when executed by the at least one processing device are configured to cause the system to perform operations comprising: (Krajewski: “With continued reference to FIG. 1, a first application server personal computer (PC) 100 and a second application server PC 102 collectively and cooperatively execute a redundant distributed multi-layered supervisory process control and manufacturing information application comprising a first portion 104 and second portion 106.” Paragraph 0026; “The data buffers of the data access servers 116 and 118 are accessed by a variety of application objects 105 and 107 executing upon the personal computers 100 and 102.” Paragraph 0027)
communicating with: a first energy management system located at a first energy generating site, and a second energy management system located at a second energy generating site, (Krajewski: “In the illustrative embodiment set forth in FIG. 1, the PCs 100 and 102 execute data access servers 116 and 118 respectively. The data access servers 116 and 118 obtain/extract process information provided by the PLC 112 and provide the process information to application objects (e.g., PLC1Network, PLC1, PLC1Network', PLC1') of the application comprising portions 104 and 106.” Paragraph 0030; “The application objects 210 include a wide variety of objects that execute business logic facilitating carrying out a particular process control operation (e.g., turning a pump on, actuating a valve), and/or information gathering/management function (e.g., raising an alarm based upon a received field device output signal value) in the context of, for example, an industrial process control system. Examples of process control (automation) application objects include analog input, discrete device, and PID loop objects.” Paragraph 0044; Lee: “Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4, the first energy management server 10 may be in an enable state, collect data from the power system 30 (S1).” Paragraph 0095)
wherein the first energy management system is configured to directly control a first electronic control device in communication with a first power plant apparatus using a first instantiation of a first hardware interface module; (Krajewski: “In the illustrative embodiment set forth in FIG. 1, the PCs 100 and 102 execute data access servers 116 and 118 respectively. The data access servers 116 and 118 obtain/extract process information provided by the PLC 112 and provide the process information to application objects (e.g., PLC1Network, PLC1, PLC1Network', PLC1') of the application comprising portions 104 and 106.” Paragraph 0030; “The application objects 210 include a wide variety of objects that execute business logic facilitating carrying out a particular process control operation (e.g., turning a pump on, actuating a valve), and/or information gathering/management function (e.g., raising an alarm based upon a received field device output signal value) in the context of, for example, an industrial process control system. Examples of process control (automation) application objects include analog input, discrete device, and PID loop objects.” Paragraph 0044) (Lee: “Referring to FIGS. 1 to 4, the first energy management server 10 may be in an enable state, collect data from the power system 30 (S1).” Paragraph 0095)
detect that the first energy management system located at the first energy generating site has malfunctioned; and (Krajewski: “Upon detection of a failure of the current active application engine, the standby engine (e.g., AppEngine 1' on PC 102) becomes the active engine and performs the tasks associated with hosting the application objects on the fail-over enabled application engine pair.” Paragraph 0035; “In an embodiment of the present invention, PC 102 provides fail-over support for PC 100. By way of example, fail-over support occurs at the application engine level (e.g., AppEngine 1 and AppEngine 1'). Thus, when AppEngine 1 on PC 100 fails/shuts down, AppEngine 1' (having a same assigned reference name as AppEngine 1 in the global name table 125) on PC 102 is configured to take over responsibilities (e.g., hosting application objects) previously assigned to AppEngine 1.” Paragraph 0034)
at least partially in response to detecting that the first energy management system located at the first energy generating site has malfunctioned, (Krajewski: “Upon detection of a failure of the current active application engine, the standby engine (e.g., AppEngine 1' on PC 102) becomes the active engine and performs the tasks associated with hosting the application objects on the fail-over enabled application engine pair.” Paragraph 0035; “In an embodiment of the present invention, PC 102 provides fail-over support for PC 100. By way of example, fail-over support occurs at the application engine level (e.g., AppEngine 1 and AppEngine 1'). Thus, when AppEngine 1 on PC 100 fails/shuts down, AppEngine 1' (having a same assigned reference name as AppEngine 1 in the global name table 125) on PC 102 is configured to take over responsibilities (e.g., hosting application objects) previously assigned to AppEngine 1.” Paragraph 0034)
assume control of the first electronic control device using a second instantiation of the first hardware interface module. (Krajewski: see the AppEngine1’ in the Application Server2 PC 102 as illustrated in figure 1; “Upon detection of a failure of the current active application engine, the standby engine (e.g., AppEngine 1' on PC 102) becomes the active engine and performs the tasks associated with hosting the application objects on the fail-over enabled application engine pair.” Paragraph 0035; “In an embodiment of the present invention, PC 102 provides fail-over support for PC 100. By way of example, fail-over support occurs at the application engine level (e.g., AppEngine 1 and AppEngine 1'). Thus, when AppEngine 1 on PC 100 fails/shuts down, AppEngine 1' (having a same assigned reference name as AppEngine 1 in the global name table 125) on PC 102 is configured to take over responsibilities (e.g., hosting application objects) previously assigned to AppEngine 1.” Paragraph 0034)
Krajewski and Lee are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 20:
The cited prior art describes the offsite energy management system as defined in Claim 18, wherein a first instantiation of a second hardware interface module is maintained at a second electronic control device and a second instantiation of the second hardware interface module is maintained in hot standby or on-demand mode. (Krajewski: see the standby – ready state 904 as illustrated in figure 9 and as described in paragraphs 0094, 0095)
Claim 21:
The cited prior art describes the offsite energy management system as defined in Claim 18, wherein the first electronic control device comprises a first server. (Krajewski: “With continued reference to FIG. 1, a first application server personal computer (PC) 100 and a second application server PC 102 collectively and cooperatively execute a redundant distributed multi-layered supervisory process control and manufacturing information application comprising a first portion 104 and second portion 106.” paragraph 0026)
Claim 24:
Claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 17 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
24. (New) The offsite energy management system as defined in Claim 18, wherein the offsite energy management system is configured to mirror data to another energy management system.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0056285 (Krajewski) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0289248 (Lee) (cited by Applicant) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0246731 (Regmi) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 11:
Krajewski and Lee do not explicitly describe versions as described below. However, Regmi teaches the versions as described below.
The cited prior art describes the computer implemented as defined in Claim 10,
wherein a plurality of versions of the first electronic control device are located at a first power plant site, the method further comprising: (Regmi: “In FIG. 5A, process 500 receives the network element operating system container images at block 502. In one embodiment, the network element operating system container images are images that can be used to instantiate one or more processes that collectively are used by a network element operating system to run and manage a network element. In particular, the network element operating system can be used to program and maintain a data plane of the network element, so that the network element can process and forward data that the network element receives. In this embodiment, these images can include libraries that are used by multiple processes.” Paragraph 0066)
selecting from a plurality of versions of hardware device interface modules stored in memory, the plurality of versions of hardware device interface modules configured for respective versions of the first electronic control device, an appropriate version of the hardware device interface module for a first version of the first electronic control device; and (Regmi: “At block 504, process 500 selects which images to instantiate. In this embodiment, process 500 determines which images to instantiate based on the configuration for the network element. The network element may not be configured to run each possible service that is available within the network element operating system. Thus, process 500 selects the images further configured services, agents, and/or other processes that the network element is configured to do.” Paragraph 0066)
deploying the appropriate version of the hardware device interface module for the first version of the first electronic control device to the first version of the first electronic control device. (Regmi: “At block 506, process 500 instantiates the selected containers for these configured services, agents, and/or processes. In one embodiment, the configuration of the network element includes which of these services, agents, and/or processes are to be executed and which of the instantiated containers. Process 500 instantiates processes for the configure services, agents, and/or processes in the appropriate selected containers at block 508.” Paragraph 0066)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Krajewski, namely, configuring redundancy in a process control system, the known techniques of Lee, namely, redundancy in an energy management system, with the known techniques of Regmi, namely, network element configuration system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Krajewski to provide redundant applications for a process control system, the teachings of Lee to provide redundant controllers for an energy management system, with the teachings of Regmi to provide software control for network elements would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved energy management system (i.e., redundancy for controllers with memory including application control in an energy management system of Krajewski based on the teachings of redundant controllers in an energy management system in Lee and the teachings of application control for network elements in Regmi).
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 11 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
19. (New) The offsite energy management system as defined in Claim 18,
wherein a plurality of versions of a second electronic control device are located at the first energy generating site,
wherein the at least one processing device is operable to:
select from a plurality of versions of hardware device interface modules stored in memory, the plurality of versions of hardware device interface modules configured for respective versions of the second electronic control device, an appropriate version of the hardware device interface module for a first version of the second electronic control device; and
deploy the appropriate version of the hardware device interface module for the first version of the second electronic control device to the first version of the second electronic control device at the first energy generating site.
Claims 12, 15-16, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0056285 (Krajewski) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0289248 (Lee) (cited by Applicant) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0109891 (Paruchuri) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 12:
Krajewski and Lee do not explicitly describe cloud control as described below. However, Paruchuri teaches the cloud control as described below.
The cited prior art describes the computer implemented as defined in Claim 10,
wherein the first power plant apparatus, the first electronic control device, and second electronic control device are located at a first power plant site, the method further comprising: (Lee: “Referring to FIGS. 1 to 3, a supervisory control and data acquisition system SCADA to which an embodiment of the present disclosure is applied may include an external controller 40, a first energy management server 10 and a second energy management server 20.” Paragraph 0083; “According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided an energy management server, including a controller configured to process first data collected from a power system into a second data; a memory database unit configured to classify the second data into dynamic data and static data according to an established data classification to store the dynamic and static data; and a duplex controller configured to selectively receive the first data and the dynamic data or the static data to synchronize with another energy management server.” Paragraph 0010)
enabling a third instantiation of the second hardware interface module, hosted by a cloud-based computer system remote from the first power plant site, to enable control of the first power plant apparatus at least partly in response to a failure of the first instantiation of the second hardware interface module and a failure of the second instantiation of the second hardware interface module. (see the control applications in Krajewski, the control programs stored in memory in Kephart, and the takeover of failed devices by devices in a fog/cloud in Paruchuri; Paruchuri: “Accordingly, if any IoT device 1504 fails, other IoT devices 1504 may be able to discover and control a resource. For example, the IoT devices 1504 may be wired so as to allow any one of the IoT devices 1504 to control measurements, inputs, outputs, etc., for the other IoT devices 1504. The aggregators 1526 may also provide redundancy in the control of the IoT devices 1504 and other functions of the fog 1520.” Paragraph 0181; “The IoT devices in FIG. 14 may be the same or similar to the IoT devices 1204 discussed with regard to FIGS. 12-13. In particular, the IoT devices in FIG. 14 may correspond with the EMS appliances, physical nodes, relay controllers, etc., discussed previously with regard to FIGS. 1-11.” Paragraph 0166; “In embodiments, fog computing systems, such as fog 1520, may be mechanisms for bringing cloud computing functionality closer to data generators and consumers wherein various network devices run cloud application logic on their native architecture. Fog computing is a system-level horizontal architecture that distributes resources and services of computing, storage, control, and networking anywhere along the continuum from Cloud 1501 to Things (e.g., IoT devices 1504).” Paragraph 0172; Krajewski: see the AppEngine1’ in the Application Server2 PC 102 as illustrated in figure 1; “Upon detection of a failure of the current active application engine, the standby engine (e.g., AppEngine 1' on PC 102) becomes the active engine and performs the tasks associated with hosting the application objects on the fail-over enabled application engine pair.” Paragraph 0035; “In an embodiment of the present invention, PC 102 provides fail-over support for PC 100. By way of example, fail-over support occurs at the application engine level (e.g., AppEngine 1 and AppEngine 1'). Thus, when AppEngine 1 on PC 100 fails/shuts down, AppEngine 1' (having a same assigned reference name as AppEngine 1 in the global name table 125) on PC 102 is configured to take over responsibilities (e.g., hosting application objects) previously assigned to AppEngine 1.” Paragraph 0034; Kephart: “Each controller 104, 106 may be configured with a plurality of control areas 150-154 that include individual control programs that may be executed by the controllers 104, 106 to perform process control. Depending on the configuration of the controllers 104, 106, the controllers 104, 106 may be segmented physically or logically to implement the control areas 150-154. In one implementation, the control areas 150-154 may be stored in segmented memory areas of the controllers 150-154 and grouped according to the required speed or frequency of execution.” Paragraph 0027)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Krajewski, namely, configuring redundancy in a process control system, the known techniques of Lee, namely, redundancy in an energy management system, with the known techniques of Paruchuri, namely, an energy management system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Krajewski to provide redundant applications for a process control system, the teachings of Lee to provide redundant controllers for an energy management system, with the teachings of Paruchuri to provide for various control mechanisms for an energy management system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved energy management system (i.e., redundancy for controllers with memory including cloud control in an energy management system of Krajewski based on the teachings of redundant controllers in an energy management system in Lee and the teachings of cloud control for an energy management system in Paruchuri).
Claim 15:
Krajewski and Lee do not explicitly describe heterogeneous power sources as described below. However, Paruchuri teaches the heterogeneous power sources as described below.
The cited prior art describes the computer implemented as defined in Claim 10, the method further comprising managing a plurality of heterogeneous power sources at the same time. (Paruchuri: “In the example of FIG. 2, the utility grid 201, diesel generator 202, diesel generator 203, and solar photovoltaic system (SPV) 204 are virtual power source nodes” paragraph 0045; “The main system controller 302 is also configured to control communication of application layer information between nodes 330, such as sending/receiving requests for data (e.g., measurement data) and sending instructions/commands for changing a mode of operation or state.” Paragraph 0051)
Krajewski, Lee, and Paruchuri are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 16:
Krajewski and Lee do not explicitly describe generating instructions and/or recommendations as described below. However, Paruchuri teaches the generating instructions and/or recommendations as described below.
The cited prior art describes the computer implemented as defined in Claim 10, the method further comprising generating instructions and/or recommendations for managing electricity generation, load balancing, the use of backup equipment, and peak demand management. (Paruchuri: “The load balancer 110 is also configured to generate load balancing instructions, which are used to instruct the configuration controller 120 to reconfigure the electrical couplings of the physical nodes in the physical electrical network 101 based on the virtual electrical couplings. The load balancer 110 is configured to provide the load balancing instructions to the configuration controller 120, which reconfigures the physical electrical network 101 based on the load balancing instructions.” Paragraph 0038; “The diesel generator 306 and UPS battery 904 via UPS PMM 905 supply local backup electricity to the second electrical panel 912.” Paragraph 0097; “Additionally, the load balancer 309 uses the load balancing criteria 325 to reconfigure the virtual electrical couplings such that the loads 907-909 use electricity using renewable and backup supplies (e.g., solar PV 903 and/or UPS battery 904 and UPS PMM 905) during peak utility grid 901 usage periods. Additionally or alternatively, the load balancer 309 uses the load balancing criteria 325 to reconfigure the virtual electrical couplings so that the solar PV 903 recharges the UPS battery 904 during non-peak utility grid 901 usage periods or during peak sunlight exposure periods (e.g., based on the current and predicted weather conditions).” Paragraph 0102; “In the example of FIG. 2, the utility grid 201, diesel generator 202, diesel generator 203, and solar photovoltaic system (SPV) 204 are virtual power source nodes” paragraph 0045; “The main system controller 302 is also configured to control communication of application layer information between nodes 330, such as sending/receiving requests for data (e.g., measurement data) and sending instructions/commands for changing a mode of operation or state.” Paragraph 0051)
Krajewski, Lee, and Paruchuri are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 22:
Claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 15 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
22. (New) The offsite energy management system as defined in Claim 18, wherein the offsite energy management system is configured to manage a plurality of heterogeneous power sources.
Claim 23:
Claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 16 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
23. (New) The offsite energy management system as defined in Claim 18, wherein the offsite energy management system is configured to generate instructions and/or recommendations for managing electricity generation, load balancing, the use of backup equipment, and peak demand management.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0289248 describes redundant energy management servers for a power system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0206841 describes an intelligent fault-tolerant battery management system.
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