Ex Parte MinerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201813927494 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/927,494 06/26/2013 105698 7590 07/02/2018 Law Office of William F. Ryann 314 East Commerce Street, Suite 401 San Antonio, TX 78205 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Miner UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P820-03 4695 EXAMINER WYNNE, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2018 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN MINER Appeal2017-010565 Application No. 13/927,494 1 Technology Center 2100 Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant's invention is an energy management system for a localized community. The system and techniques thereof are directed at managing allocations of total available energy generated at the localized community as between current use and storage. Management of the energy is enhanced 1 The real party in interest is Dorazio Enterprises, Inc. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 2 and 14 have been cancelled. Appeal2017-010565 Application No. 13/927,494 through a variety of optimizations that may be applied to a variety of energy types available to the community. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. (Previously Amended) A method of managing energy surety in a localized community, the method comprising: acquiring real-time community based data relative to multiple energy types available to the localized community, the localized community being substantially serviceable by a power equivalent of no more than 100 megawatts of electrical power; managing the allocation of the total available energy from the energy types over a micro-grid of the localized community, the micro-grid having a maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent irrespective of the multiple available energy types, said managing including optimizing distribution of the total available energy based on the data; storing a portion of the total available energy for delayed distribution; and operating over the micro-grid at near-maximum capacity therefor over a substantially continuous 24 hour cycle for the optimized distribution and storing of the total available energy. (App. Br. Claims Appendix, 14.) THE PRIOR ART The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Miller US 7,274,975 B2 Bayoumi et al., US 2004/0030457 Al hereinafter "Bayoumi" Creed US 2010/0274407 Al 2 Sept. 25, 2007 Feb. 12, 2004; Oct. 28, 2010 Appeal2017-010565 Application No. 13/927,494 Prosser et al., US 2012/0245744 Al Sept. 27, 2012; hereinafter "Prosser" Sackman et al., US 2011/0208367 Al Aug. 25, 2011; hereinafter "Sackman" Kramer et al., hereinafter "Kramer" US 2004/02647408 Al Dec. 30, 2004; Asghari et al., US 2014/0350743 Al Nov. 27, 2014; hereinafter "Asghari" Fred Thomasson, Envelope Optimization and Control Using Fuzzy Logic, Controlguru, http://www.controlguru.com/2007 /060607 .html THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 19--21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, and Creed. (Final Act. 2-18.) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, and Prosser. (Final Act. 18-19.) Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, and Sackman. (Final Act. 19- 20.) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, and Kramer. (Final Act. 20-21.) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, Asghari, and Thomasson. (Final Act. 21-23.) (See also Ans. 2.) 3 Appeal2017-010565 Application No. 13/927,494 Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Final Office Action, mailed Jan. 19, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed Apr. 18, 2017 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief filed Aug. 7, 2017 ("Reply Br.,"), and the Examiner's Answer mailed June 22, 2017 ("Ans.,") for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Miller, Bayoumi, and Creed disclose or fairly suggest a "micro-grid having a maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent" that services the localized community (i.e., 100 megawatts), "irrespective of the multiple available energy types," as recited in claim 1 ? PRINCIPLES OF LAW To teach away, prior art must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed." Mere disclosure of alternative embodiments is not a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, AND 21 Appellant argues that Creed does not disclose a micro-grid that has "a maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent" sufficient to service the "localized community" irrespective of the variety of energy types that might be available to the micro-grid. App. Br. 6, 8. 4 Appeal2017-010565 Application No. 13/927,494 According to Appellant, Creed discloses "exactly the opposite" of such a micro-grid, because Creed is directed to a mobile community of ever- changing power requirements that would make tying the maximum capacity of the grid thereto impractical. App. Br. 8. Appellant asserts that Creed's mobile military camp, because it "tend[ s] to continuously grow in power demand," is the opposite of the claimed micro-grid with maximum capacity "limited to no more than a power equivalent of a localized community serviceable by no more than 100 megawatts." App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted.) Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that the arguments concerning Creed are presented "squarely to traverse the Examiner's position that [Creed discloses] a 'micro-grid having a maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent irrespective of the multiple available energy types."' Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner finds that the combination of Miller and Bayoumi discloses "a localized community being substantially serviceable by a power equivalent of no more than 100 megawatts [a certain amount] of electrical power." Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner then cites Creed for its disclosure of "a method ... for controlling supply of electrical power to a mobile micro-grid power system." Final Act. 5---6 (citing Creed i-f 21). According to Creed, "[a] load profile and an active reserve power level are determined for the micro- grid based in whole or in part on the micro-grid load data, and the supply of electrical power to the micro-grid is balanced by setting the power supply activation states based at least in part on the load profile and the active reserve power level." Ans. 6; Creed i-f 21. We agree with the Examiner that 5 Appeal2017-010565 Application No. 13/927,494 Creed thus discloses a maximum capacity "(corresponding to the load profile+ the reserve power) which is limited to no more than a power equivalent of a community (again, the load profile + reserve power of the community connected to the micro-grid) irrespective of the available energy types." Ans. 6. We further agree with the Examiner that Creed discloses the claimed" ... irrespective of the multiple energy types," as Creed discloses activating or deactivating a plurality of power supplies, including at minimum mobile generators 91, fuel cell generators 52, and energy storage systems 80. Creed i-fi-1 21, 71. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Creed teaches "the opposite" of the claimed micro-grid. App. Br. 9. Treating Appellant's argument as an allegation that Creed teaches away from the claimed invention, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive on that point. Appellant does not explain how Creed "criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages" the solution claimed. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Whether or not Creed's "community" is a "mobile military camp" whose power requirements change over time, the fact remains that Creed discloses setting its power supply activation states based at least in part on the load profile and the active reserve power level. App. Br. 9; Creed i121. Creed further discloses that "a determination is made automatically as to whether rebalancing of the micro-grid electrical power supply is needed." Creed i121. Such a disclosure of rebalancing means that Creed contemplates evaluating, and potentially changing, the activation state of one or more power supplies over time, based on the (dynamic) state of the load profile and the active reserve power level. See Id. 6 Appeal2017-010565 Application No. 13/927,494 Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, and Creed. CLAIMS 5, 8, 11, 17, AND 18 These claims are not separately argued by Appellant, who argues only that the claims are allowable "for the reasons set forth" with respect to independent claim 1. App. Br. 11-13. Since we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1, we also sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18, for the reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, supra. CONCLUSION The combination of Miller, Bayoumi, and Creed suggests a micro-grid having a maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent that services the localized community (i.e., 100 megawatts), irrespective of the multiple available energy types. ORDER The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation