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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a heating unit operably connected to the first in-ground fluid storage tank and adapted to heat the first fluid” and “a cooling unit operably connected to the second in-ground fluid storage tank and adapted to cool the second fluid” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 of claim 18 appears to contain a typographical error resulting in a duplication of the word “and.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 17 of claim 20 appears to contain a typographical error resulting in a duplication of the word “and.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 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. Specifically, lines 3 and 4 of claim 9 recite “the in-ground fluid storage tank”, however, the limitation does not specify to which of the previously recited first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks it refers.
Claim 10 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. Specifically, lines 3 and 4 of claim 10 recite “the in-ground fluid storage tank”, however, the limitation does not specify to which of the previously recited first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks it refers.
Claim 11 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. Specifically, lines 3 and 4 of claim 11 recite “the in-ground fluid storage tank”, however, the limitation does not specify to which of the previously recited first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks it refers.
Claim 12 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. Specifically, line 5 of claim 12 recites “the in-ground fluid storage tank”, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 13 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. Specifically, line 5 of claim 13 recites “the in-ground fluid storage tank”, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 14 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. Specifically, line 5 of claim 14 recites “the in-ground fluid storage tank”, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US 2008/0128012) in view of Serrano Dorado et al. (US 2012/0303351).
Regarding claim 1, Schick discloses a method comprising: initializing an energy storage system (Fig. 4; [0039]) having a loading operational phase ([0039] discloses fluid tanks; the disclosed fluid tanks are necessarily filled which satisfies the limitation “loading operational phase”), a storage operational phase ([0039] discloses fluid tanks; the disclosed fluid tanks necessary satisfy the limitation “storage operational phase”), and a discharge operational phase ([0039] discloses electricity is generated) and comprising: a first in-ground fluid storage tank defining a first chamber (tank 1 in Fig. 4); a second in-ground storage tank defining a second chamber (tank 2 in Fig. 4); a first fluid disposed in the first chamber ([0039] discloses fluid tanks); a second fluid disposed in the second chamber ([0039] discloses fluid tanks); a heating unit operably connected to the first in-ground fluid storage tank and adapted to heat the first fluid ([0040] discloses an agitating pump in order to improve heat transfer between the tanks and the air and ground; it is noted that the limitation is treated in accordance with 112(f) and paragraph [0035] of the as-filed specification states the heating unit 118 can comprise any suitable heating unit that can be adapted to heat the first fluid 114 stored in the first fluid storage tank 110 and a skilled artisan will be able to select a suitable heating unit based on various considerations such as the fluid intended to be used as the first fluid 114 and types and costs of energy available at the location of installation of the energy storage system), and a cooling unit operably connected to the second in-ground fluid storage tank and adapted to cool the second fluid ([0040] discloses an agitating pump in order to improve heat transfer between the tanks and the air and ground; it is noted that the limitation is treated in accordance with 112(f) and paragraph [0036] of the as-filed specification states the cooling unit 120 can comprise any suitable cooling unit that can be adapted to cool the second fluid 116 stored in the second fluid storage tank 112 and a skilled artisan will be able to select a suitable cooling unit based on various considerations such as the fluid intended to be used as the second fluid 116 and types and costs of energy available at the location of installation of the energy storage system); a thermoelectric generator exposed to the first fluid and the second fluid and adapted to convert a temperature difference between the first fluid and the second fluid directly to electrical energy ([0039]).
Schick does not explicitly disclose evaluating demand for electricity and price of electricity parameters to identify a desirable operational phase of the energy storage system based on pre-defined criteria; evaluating tank temperatures in the energy storage system by determining a temperature of the first fluid in the first fluid storage tank and determining a temperature of the second fluid in the second fluid storage tank; and updating the operational status of the energy storage system based on the evaluating demand for electricity and price of electricity parameters and the evaluating tank temperatures by maintaining the current operational phase of the energy storage system or changing the operational phase of the energy storage system from one of the loading operational phase, the storage operational phase, and the discharge operational phase to another, different one of the loading operational phase, the storage operational phase, and the discharge operational phase.
Serrano Dorado discloses a method of selectively discharging electrical energy from an energy storage system ([0018]), and further discloses evaluating demand for electricity and price of electricity parameters to identify a desirable operational phase of the energy storage system based on pre-defined criteria ([0010]); evaluating tank temperatures in the energy storage system by determining a temperature of the first fluid in the first fluid storage tank and determining a temperature of the second fluid in the second fluid storage tank ([0050]); and updating the operational status of the energy storage system based on the evaluating demand for electricity and price of electricity parameters and the evaluating tank temperatures by maintaining the current operational phase of the energy storage system or changing the operational phase of the energy storage system from one of the loading operational phase, the storage operational phase, and the discharge operational phase to another, different one of the loading operational phase, the storage operational phase, and the discharge operational phase ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include evaluating demand for electricity and price of electricity parameters to identify a desirable operational phase of the energy storage system based on pre-defined criteria; evaluating tank temperatures in the energy storage system by determining a temperature of the first fluid in the first fluid storage tank and determining a temperature of the second fluid in the second fluid storage tank; and updating the operational status of the energy storage system based on the evaluating demand for electricity and price of electricity parameters and the evaluating tank temperatures by maintaining the current operational phase of the energy storage system or changing the operational phase of the energy storage system from one of the loading operational phase, the storage operational phase, and the discharge operational phase to another, different one of the loading operational phase, the storage operational phase, and the discharge operational phase, as disclosed by Serrano Dorado, in the method of Schick, because as taught by Serrano Dorado, the system allows for specifying the operating conditions of the thermal electric plant, consulting the proposed production plan and exploiting the handled information to perform the necessary information management ([0007]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the optimization system of Serrano Dorado in the method of Schick, because as evidenced by Serrano Dorado, the use of an optimization system in a thermal electric plant (Serrano Dorado - [0007]) amounts to the use of a known system in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when incorporating elements of the optimization system of Serrano Dorado in the method of Schick.
With regard to the limitation “A method of selectively discharging electrical energy from an energy storage system,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding claim 2, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Schick further discloses repeating the evaluating demand for electricity and price of electricity parameters, the evaluating tank temperatures in the energy storage system, and updating the operational status of the energy storage system at a pre-determined frequency (Serrano Dorado – [0036],[0047]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Schick further discloses the pre-determined frequency is once per hour (Serrano Dorado – [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Schick further discloses the first fluid and the second fluid are the same (Schick – [0037],[0040]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Schick further discloses the first fluid and the second fluid comprise water (Schick – [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Schick does not explicitly disclose the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground fluid storage tank have the same dimensions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first and second in-ground storage tanks with the same dimensions because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Schick does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground fluid storage tank has at least one of a length and a width that is at least 5 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form at least one of the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks with at least one of a length and a width that is at least 5 times a depth of the in ground fluid storage tank because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Schick does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground fluid storage tank has at least one of a length and a width that is at least 10 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form at least one of the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks of modified Schick with at least one of a length and a width that is at least 10 times a depth of the in-ground storage tank because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Schick does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground storage tank has at least one of a length and a width that is at least 20 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form at least one of the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks with at least one of a length and a width that is at least 20 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Schick does not explicitly disclose the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground fluid storage tank have the same dimensions; and wherein each of the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground storage fluid tank has at least one of a length and a width that is at least 5 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks of modified Schick with the same dimensions; and wherein each of the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks have at least one of a length and a width that is at least 5 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Schick does not explicitly disclose the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground fluid storage tank have the same dimensions; and wherein each of the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground storage fluid tank has at least one of a length and a width that is at least 10 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks of modified Schick with the same dimensions; and wherein each of the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks have at least one of a length and a width that is at least 10 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Schick does not explicitly disclose the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground fluid storage tank have the same dimensions; and wherein each of the first in-ground fluid storage tank and the second in-ground storage fluid tank has at least one of a length and a width that is at least 20 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks of modified Schick with the same dimensions; and wherein each of the first and second in-ground fluid storage tanks have at least one of a length and a width that is at least 20 times a depth of the in-ground fluid storage tank because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US 2008/0128012) in view of Serrano Dorado et al. (US 2012/0303351) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Sanders et al. (US 2017/0005515).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Schick does not explicitly disclose the pre-determined frequency is at least once per minute.
Sanders discloses an energy management system ([0101]) which includes retrieving telemetry data from one or more energy storage modules to calculate an amount of available stored energy; applying the amount of available stored energy to offset a need to purchase and install one or more new electricity generating means; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce generation marginal cost, wherein said generation marginal cost comprises a cost of fuel and a cost for variable maintenance; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce generation capacity cost, wherein said generation capacity cost comprises one or more costs incurred in increasing generation capacity; using the amount of available stored energy to provide one or more rapid response energy storage modules; wherein the rapid response energy storage modules can provide regulation of the amount of available stored energy while charging and while discharging; using the amount of available stored energy to provide one or more electric supply reserve capacities, wherein the one or more electric supply reserve capacities reduce the need and cost for one or more other electric reserves; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce one or more users' electricity time-of-use (TOU) costs; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce one or more users' electricity real-time-price (RTP) energy costs; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce one or more end users' power draw on one or more utilities during times when electricity use is high; and reducing one or more demand charges from one or more utilities by storing energy in one or more energy storage modules at one or more times when low or no demand charges apply. In certain aspects, a load shaping service may include steps to include load shaping schedule requests from one or more external applications. In other aspects, the method for wholesale energy services may include one or more steps for virtual power plant orchestration, load shaping services and steps for accepting emergency, on-demand load control requests. In other aspects, the method for providing wholesale energy services may include steps wherein providing a virtual power plant orchestration load shaping service corresponds to one or more event awareness services in an energy resources cloud. In other aspects, the method may include steps wherein providing the virtual power plant orchestration includes iterative scheduling of one or more distributed demand sources that correspond to one or more wholesale energy services in a user partitioned virtual energy resources cloud.
Sanders further discloses response to regulation signals on a per-second basis
([0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was filed to set the pre-determined frequency of modified Schick to once per second, as disclosed by Sanders, because as evidenced by Sanders, the use of a pre-determined frequency of once per second in a renewable energy management system amounts to the use of a known parameter in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when setting the pre-determined frequency of modified Schick to once per second based on the teaching of Sanders.
Regarding claim 5, modified Schick discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Schick does not explicitly disclose the pre-determined frequency is at least once per second.
Sanders discloses an energy management system ([0101]) which includes retrieving telemetry data from one or more energy storage modules to calculate an amount of available stored energy; applying the amount of available stored energy to offset a need to purchase and install one or more new electricity generating means; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce generation marginal cost, wherein said generation marginal cost comprises a cost of fuel and a cost for variable maintenance; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce generation capacity cost, wherein said generation capacity cost comprises one or more costs incurred in increasing generation capacity; using the amount of available stored energy to provide one or more rapid response energy storage modules; wherein the rapid response energy storage modules can provide regulation of the amount of available stored energy while charging and while discharging; using the amount of available stored energy to provide one or more electric supply reserve capacities, wherein the one or more electric supply reserve capacities reduce the need and cost for one or more other electric reserves; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce one or more users' electricity time-of-use (TOU) costs; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce one or more users' electricity real-time-price (RTP) energy costs; using the amount of available stored energy to reduce one or more end users' power draw on one or more utilities during times when electricity use is high; and reducing one or more demand charges from one or more utilities by storing energy in one or more energy storage modules at one or more times when low or no demand charges apply. In certain aspects, a load shaping service may include steps to include load shaping schedule requests from one or more external applications. In other aspects, the method for wholesale energy services may include one or more steps for virtual power plant orchestration, load shaping services and steps for accepting emergency, on-demand load control requests. In other aspects, the method for providing wholesale energy services may include steps wherein providing a virtual power plant orchestration load shaping service corresponds to one or more event awareness services in an energy resources cloud. In other aspects, the method may include steps wherein providing the virtual power plant orchestration includes iterative scheduling of one or more distributed demand sources that correspond to one or more wholesale energy services in a user partitioned virtual energy resources cloud.
Sanders further discloses response to regulation signals on a per-second basis
([0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was filed to set the pre-determined frequency of modified Schick to once per second, as disclosed by Sanders, because as evidenced by Sanders, the use of a pre-determined frequency of once per second in a renewable energy management system amounts to the use of a known parameter in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when setting the pre-determined frequency of modified Schick to once per second based on the teaching of Sanders.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the limitations “a heating unit operably connected to the first in-ground fluid storage tank and adapted to heat the first fluid” and “a cooling unit operably connected to the second in-ground fluid storage tank and adapted to cool the second fluid” in claim 1 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and satisfied by the disclosure of Schick as set forth above, claims 15 through 17 recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and are therefore not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). There is not a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an electrical induction heater partially disposed in ground adjacent the first in-ground fluid storage tank and having a heating coil disposed within the first chamber and in contact with the first fluid, as recited in claim 15, nor to include an electric refrigeration unit disposed in ground adjacent the second tank and having a cooling coil disposed in the second chamber and in contact with the second fluid, as recited in claim 17, because Schick is concerned with generating electricity from the temperature difference between a fluid maintained at air temperature and a fluid maintained at ground temperature (abstract).
With regard to claims 18 through 20, it is noted that claims 18 and 20 are
objected to as set forth above, and are otherwise allowable for the same reason set forth for claims 15-17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726