DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This communication is an Office Action Final rejection in response to the filing of the applicant’s response to the non-final rejection filed on 02/09/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is a continuation of application 18/792,847 (now US Patent 12,244,147).
Double Patenting
2. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8,18-21 of US Patent 12,244,147.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a twin configurable architecture renewable power plant for high-capacity factor servicing of controllable loads in a similar manner without patentable distinguishable features.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of US Patent 12,244,147 discloses a system, comprising:
at least one renewable energy source (RES);
at least one energy storage system (ESS) that is electrically coupled to a grid interconnection point of an electric grid and to the at least one RES, and that has an aggregated power capacity that is not more than an aggregated power output capacity of the at least one RES; and a controller that is communicatively coupled with at least one controllable load (CL) and with at least one of the at least one ESS or the at least one RES, the controller configured to control a net load of the at least one CL and to:
provide a first instruction to at least one of the at least one RES or the at least one ESS to provide a first portion of electric power generated by the at least one RES or stored by the at least one ESS to the at least one CL;
provide a second instruction to at least one of the at least one RES or the at least one ESS to provide a second portion of electric power to the electric grid only if (A) electric power generated by the at least one RES exceeds the aggregated power capacity and an aggregated power demand of the at least one CL, or (B) the controller, using a predictive algorithm, determines that a grid condition of the electric grid exists in a power system forecast; and
in response to determining that the grid condition exists without the electric power generated by the at least one RES exceeding the aggregated power capacity and the aggregated power demand of the at least one CL, provide a third instruction to the at least one CL to one of increase or decrease a power demand at the at least one CL (see Claim 1).
Regarding claims 2-11, these claims are unpatentable over claims 2-8,18-21 of
US Patent 12,244,147 since are similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claims 28-30 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.
Claims 28-30 has been rejected under 112 (b) since these claims depends on cancelled claim 17 and is impossible to define the metes and bounds of these claims, please correct.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16,22-27,31 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination) the following limitations in combination with the rest of the claim:
Regarding the independent claims 12, 27 and 31, Buttgenback et al, US Patent Application Publication (US 2023/0129279 A1) was the closest prior art, Buttgenback et al discloses a systems and methods for serving two or more uncorrelated loads connected to a renewable energy powerplant. The uncorrelated loads comprise a power grid and one or more industrial processes. A system may comprise a renewable energy system (RES), an energy storage system (ESS), and a controller programmed to: discretize an upcoming forecast horizon into a plurality of time periods; calculate one or more metrics for sending energy generated by the first RES to: (1) the ESS, (2) the power grid, and (3) the one or more industrial processes; prioritize the: (1) ESS, (2) power grid, and (3) one or more industrial processes,
however, the prior art of record does not clearly disclose the specific configuration, particular operation for the claimed non-transitory, processor-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:control a net load of at least one controllable load (CL);provide a first instruction to at least one of (1) at least one renewable energy source (RES) or (2) at least one energy storage system (ESS), to cause a first portion of electric power generated by the at least one RES or stored by the at least one ESS to be supplied to the at least one CL; provide a second instruction to at least one of the at least one RES or the at least one ESS to provide a second portion of electric power to an electric grid only if (A) electric power generated by the at least one RES exceeds an aggregated power capacity of the at least one ESS and an aggregated power demand of the CL, or (B) a grid condition of the electric grid is determined, using a predictive algorithm, to exist in a power system forecast; and in response to determining that the grid condition exists without the electric power generated by the at least one RES exceeding the aggregated power capacity of the at least one ESS and the aggregated power demand of the at least one CL, provide a third instruction to the at least one CL to one of increase or decrease a power demand at the at least one CL, as currently claimed, in combination with additional limitations from the rest of the claim.
Therefore, the invention as currently claimed is different from the recited in the prior art, the prior arts of record are not specifically directed to the applicant’s claimed matter, therefore, based on the updated search performed and considering applicant’s remarks, it has been determined that the claims have been found novel and non-obvious.
Regarding claims 13-16,22-26, which depends on claim 12, these claims, are allowable for at least the same reasons given for claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks (pages 10-15), filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 22-26 under the 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the double patenting rejection is still maintained subject to filing of a terminal disclaimer and in addition, a new 112 (b) rejection has been applied to newly added claims 28-30 since these depend on cancelled claim 17.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art of record in the 892-form attached.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached on (571) 270-7166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights