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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Manson (2018/0152022).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Manson teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) an energy management device (180) and method for an energy supply device in an electrical island grid (201 and/or 202) with a plurality of parallel-connected energy supply modules (204-208 and/or 240-243), for open-loop or closed-loop control of the energy supply modules, wherein at least one first parameter of a power supplied to each energy supply module is monitored/measured (via IEDs) with regard to deviations from a respective setpoint value, wherein the first parameter or a second parameter of the supplied power is monitored with regard to fluctuations, wherein the deviations and/or fluctuations are used to identify a faulty energy supply module, and the faulty energy supply module is switched off/disconnected depending on the deviations and/or fluctuations ([0022], [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Manson teaches the fluctuations relating to frequency, electric voltage, active and reactive power are monitored ([0036], [0053], [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Manson teaches if the deviation that arises exceeds a parameterizable limit value, an alarm and/or a parameterizable protective function (open a circuit breaker) of the corresponding energy supply module is triggered ([022], [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Manson teaches deviations and fluctuations of an energy supply module are compared with deviations and fluctuations of other energy supply modules in the island grid ([0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Manson teaches a faulty energy supply module is identified (i.e. operating least efficiently) and an effect of disconnecting this faulty energy supply module from the island grid is examined ([0042]; “examined” meaning the controller considered it based on the power generation compared to load demand).
Regarding claim 8, Manson teaches an alternative is ascertained should it not be possible to disconnect the faulty energy supply module ([0042]; it’s not possible if the remaining generators can’t produce sufficient power to supply the loads).
Regarding claim 10, Manson teaches an energy supply module is monitored for over- or undersupply of fuel ([0061]), wherein a calculated power is compared with a current power, and if a value exceeds or falls below a first parameterizable deviation of the power from a calculated setpoint value, an alarm is triggered (i.e. notification of operating conditions via IED) and in an event of a value exceeding or falling below a second parameterizable deviation that is greater than the first parameterizable deviation, a parameterizable protective function of a fault energy supply is initiated ([0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Manson teaches the monitoring device (180) comprises at least one island monitoring module and a plurality of in- and output modules (IEDs), wherein the in- and output modules are arranged in the respective energy supply module and are configured for collecting setpoint and actual values of the individual energy supply modules and forwarding them to the respective island monitoring module so that the setpoint and actual values of the individual energy supply modules can be compared with one another there and recommended actions can be transmitted to the energy management system ([0037], [0038], [0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manson (2018/0152022). Manson teaches the energy management method and supply device as described above.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Manson teaches the monitored parameters being the voltage, current, frequency, and phase with regard to setpoint values of the power signals ([0022], [0060]). Manson fails to explicitly teach the monitored parameters being an active power or reactive power setpoint values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include active power and reactive power setpoint values as monitored parameters in the system, since all of the parameters that make up the active and reactive power (voltage, current, frequency, and phase) are already being monitored, and it is basically equivalent to having the active power and reactive power as setpoint values (based on the setpoint values of the voltage, current, frequency, and phase).
Regarding claim 9, Manson teaches the IEDs constantly monitoring/measuring parameters of the supplied power of an energy supply module ([0022]). Manson fails to explicitly teach the precise temporal resolution of the measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the measurements to take place with a temporal resolution of at least 500ms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendment to the independent claims, the Examiner believes that Manson teaches the added limitations (at [0022] and [0025]). Manson teaches (at [0022]) detecting “anomalous operating conditions” (i.e. faulty conditions) and disconnecting generators, and (at [0025]) detecting parameters “outside predetermined parameters” and disconnecting loads that are outside of the predetermined parameters (i.e. drastic fluctuations/deviations). An example of this described in Manson is shutting off generators running below an efficiency threshold, which is analogous to a “faulty” energy supply module.
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner believes that Manson teaches monitoring analogous parameters (voltage, current, frequency, and phase) to the claimed active and reactive powers and comparing said monitored parameters to setpoint values. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that active and reactive power values are functions of the voltage, current, frequency, and phase of a power signal. So, even though Manson is not explicitly teaching monitoring active and reactive power setpoint values, the fact that Manson is teaching monitoring voltage, frequency, and phase setpoint values would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also monitor active and reactive power setpoint values. For example, since Manson teaches monitoring voltage, current, frequency, and phase to setpoint values, then those setpoint values for voltage, current, frequency, and phase equate to an analogous setpoint value for power.
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument. Both the present invention and the Manson reference teach taking measurements of at least one parameter with a very short temporal resolution value. The present invention explicitly states 500ms, however, the Manson reference fails to explicitly state a specific temporal resolution value. However, case law states that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. taking measurements with a very short temporal resolution value) are disclosed in the prior art, selecting a precise value involves only routine skill in the art and therefore is not a patentable feature.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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).
DMP
8/31/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights