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 § 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.
Claims 5 and 9 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner feels that the way this claim is worded is not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter that is described in the Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 0046 – 0052. Among other things, the Examiner believes that language should be added to clearly point out that the difference in successive measured values is determined after each successive measured value, and then compared to the previous difference values to see if they are opposite in sign and both exceeding a parameterizable value. The Examiner will interpret this claim in the way described in paragraphs 0046-0052 of the Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “at least 500ms”, and the claim also recites “in particular 200ms” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 and the respective (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, frequency, and phase with regard to setpoint values of the power signals ([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, 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, 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: the references of record, either alone, or in combination, do not teach or suggest at least the limitations of: Regarding claim 5 (specifically what is described in paragraphs 0046-0052 of the Applicant’s specification), the idea of monitoring the difference in successive measured values and comparing them based on the magnitude and sign changes as claimed to trigger an alarm and/or protective function. The Examiner believes this claim would be allowable if reworded in a more explicit way to describe the function described in Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 0046-0052.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
6/25/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights