NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Acknowledgements
1. This non-final Office Action addresses broadening reissue U.S. Application No. 18/959,403 (“instant application”). Examiners find the actual filing date of the instant application is November 25, 2024.
2. The instant application is a broadening reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,558, (“‘558 Patent”) issued Jul. 16, 2024. The ‘558 Patent was filed on Jan. 31, 2022 as U.S. Application No. 17/589,160 (“160 Application”), titled “DISTRIBUTED ENERGY CONTROL”.
3. Examiners do not find any certificates of correction, ongoing/previous proceedings before the Office, or current ongoing litigation involving the ‘558 Patent.
4. The ‘558 Patent issued with claims 1-20 (“Patented Claims”). In the preliminary amendment filed November 25, 2024 ("NOVEMBER 2024 CLAIM AMENDMENTS"), claims 21-40 are added.
5. Claims 1-40 are pending and examined and are grouped as follows:
claims 1-7;
claims 8-14;
claims 15-20;
claims 21-27;
claims 28-34; and
claims 35-40.
Priority Claims
6. Examiners find the instant application is claiming domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 or 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. App. No. 16/289,860 (“’860 Application”), which was filed on Mar. 1, 2019 and Provisional App. No. 62/685,734 filed on Jun. 15, 2018 (“provisional application”)
7. Examiners find the instant application does not claim foreign priority.
8. Because the provisional application contains only figures 1-3 whereas the ‘860 Application contains figures 1-5, where additional figures 4-5 are directed to the network for energy dispatch and deployment of the claims, the presumed effective U.S. filing date of the instant application is the filing date of the ‘860 Application, which is March 1, 2019.
Claim Objections
9. Claims 15 and 21 are objected to because of apparent minor typographical errors.
As to claim 15, the method steps are “determining… determine… determining… determining… receiving… determining, and sending.” It appears that the “determine” was intended to be “determining.”
As to claim 21, the control system is configured to “determine… determining… determine… determine… receive…, and determine.” It appears that the “determining” was intended to be “determine.”
CORRECTION IS SUGGESTED.
Reissue Declaration
10. Claims 1-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
Specifically, the reissue declaration filed November 25, 2024 (“NOVEMBER 2024 REISSUE DECLARATION”) is insufficient because the error description does not identify a broadened claim and how the claim is broadened. See MPEP §1414.
The NOVEMBER 2024 REISSUE DECLARATION error statement is as follows.
PNG
media_image1.png
116
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As an initial matter, Examiners note the error description appears to be inadvertently truncated. What is missing here, however, is the identification of the broadened claim. Examiners suggest the following sufficient error description.
Patent claim ** has been broadened by removing the limitation “_________,” which was unduly narrowing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Specifically, the limitation “battery cycle life and cost characteristics” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “cost characteristics” pertains the ‘cost of the battery’ or ‘the cost of the battery life cycle.’ In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be read as if the ‘cost of the battery’ is the ‘cost of the battery cycle life,’ i.e., the cost of the number of full charge and discharge cycles the battery can complete before its capacity drops to about 80% of its original capacity.
12. Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) on the basis that they contain an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
As to claims 1-20, the Markush grouping is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. The Markush grouping is “the group consisting of wholesale bilateral contracts, day ahead price markets, local distributed energy generation, and battery cycle life and cost characteristics.”
Examiners find three groups in this grouping. The first is “wholesale bilateral contracts, day ahead price markets,” which are economic data. The second is “local distributed energy generation,” which is not economic data. And, the third is “battery cycle life and cost characteristics,” which are figures of merit of a battery. Examiners find these are not members of the same recognized physical or the same art-recognized class Thus, it is an improper Markush grouping.
As to claims 21-40, the Markush grouping is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. The Markush grouping is “the group consisting of utility operation data, environmental data, renewable generation data, energy market data, battery cycle life, battery performance, and battery characteristics.”
Examiners find two groups in this grouping. The first is “utility operation data, environmental data, renewable generation data, energy market data” which are energy market data. The second is “battery cycle life, battery performance, and battery characteristics,” which are figures of merit of a battery. Examiners find these are not members of the same recognized physical or the same art-recognized class Thus, it is an improper Markush grouping.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0004720 to Henri et al. filed Dec. 28, 2017 (“Henri”), which is before the presumed effective filing date, i.e. March 1, 2019.
As to claim 1, Henri discloses a shared machine learning approach for real-time battery operation mode prediction and control. See Title.
Henri discloses batteries, which read on the claimed “an energy storage device.” See ¶[0025].
Henri discloses control layer (fig. 8, #801), which reads on the claimed “control system.” See ¶[0033].
PNG
media_image2.png
120
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Henri’s disclosure of an EMPC reads on the claimed “determine, from a plurality of energy markets, a selected energy market for the energy storage device.” See ¶[0035].
PNG
media_image3.png
248
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Henri’s second task reads on the claimed “determine, using a machine learning model, an expected cost associated with charging and discharging the energy storage device, wherein the machine learning model is generated using one or more inputs selected from the group consisting of: wholesale bilateral contracts, day ahead Henri markets, local distributed energy generation, and battery cycle life and cost characteristics, and wherein the battery cycle life is determined based, at least in part, on a predictive analysis model.” See ¶[0044].
PNG
media_image4.png
230
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Henri’s next time step reads on the claimed “determine an expected wholesale electricity Henri of a unit of electricity for each particular time unit of a plurality of time units of a particular day.” See ¶[0044].
Henri’s power charging cap reads on the claimed “determine a charging and dispatching schedule for the energy storage device to optimize the battery cycle life based on the determined expected cost associated with charging and discharging the energy storage device, the determined expected wholesale electricity Henri, and the selected energy market.” See ¶[0032].
.
PNG
media_image5.png
300
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Henri’s second task reads on the claimed “receive real-time operation data for the energy storage device.” See ¶[0044].
PNG
media_image4.png
230
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Henri’s Learning Aggregator reads on the claimed “determine, using the machine learning model and the real-time operation data, an updated charging and dispatching schedule for the energy storage device.” See ¶¶[0045]-[0046].
PNG
media_image6.png
230
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Henri’s control signal reads on the claimed “send one or more commands to charge and discharge the energy storage device according to the updated charging and dispatching schedule.” See ¶[0082].
PNG
media_image7.png
308
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claims 8 and 15 are the control system and method of claim 1. As such, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are merely broadened versions of claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Thus, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As to claims 3, 10, 17, 23, 30, and 37, Henri discloses “the energy storage device is: a household battery installed in a residential home; a battery installed at a commercial facility; or a battery installed at an industrial facility” at ¶[0027].
PNG
media_image8.png
110
422
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to claims 4, 11, 24, and 31, Henri disclose “the energy storage device is coupled to a distribution side of a load center” at ¶[0027].
As to claims 5, 12, 18, 25, 32, 38, Henri’s different grid services read on the claimed “the plurality of energy markets comprises a day ahead market, a real time market, a futures market, and a bilateral contracts market; and the selected energy market is determined using one or more of environmental data, battery characteristic data, a load profile, real time pricing data, day ahead pricing data, and futures market data.” See.
PNG
media_image9.png
100
426
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to claims 6, 13, 19, 26, 33, and 39, Henri’s second task electricity prices reads on the claimed “real-time weather data and real-time wholesale electric market data .” See ¶[0044].
PNG
media_image4.png
230
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7, 14, 20, 27, 34, and 40, Henri’s data from a smart metere connected to a battery reads on the claimed “real-time battery health data and customer-supplied battery constraints.” See ¶[0044].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. Claims 2, 9, 16, 22, 29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henri in view of US 2016/0214489 to Giusti et al. published Jul. 28, 2016, which is before the presumed effective filing date, i.e. March 1, 2019.
Henri does not specifically disclose “the energy storage device is an electric vehicle.” Giusti, however, teaches a method for recharging an energy storage device of an electric vehicle based on electric power network grid load peak times/cost of energy. See ¶[0006]. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply Henri’s method for charging a battery specifically to a vehicle, as taught by Giusti.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANDRA M HUGHES whose telephone number is (571)272-6982. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-Th 8AM-6PM.
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, Hetul Patel can be reached at 571-272-4184. 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.
Signed:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
/H.B.P/
Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights