ABB Schweiz AG - [2019] APO 27

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
ABB Schweiz AG [2019] APO 27

Patent Application: 2014410506

Title:Control of a Microgrid

Patent Applicant:                   ABB Schweiz AG
Delegate:  M. G. Kraefft
Decision Date:  7 June 2019
Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 23 April 2019

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – whether there is inventive step – microgrid with multiple points of common coupling allowing power flows between microgrid and other power grids – formulation of problem in art – documented problems in specification not based on information available as common general knowledge or under subsection 7(3) – control of second power flow in microgrid in dependence on changes in first power flow not established to have been obvious – application to be accepted.

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Griffith Hack

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2014410506

Title:Control of a Microgrid

Patent Applicant: ABB Schweiz AG
Date of Decision: 7 June 2019
DECISION
The claimed invention has an inventive step.
I direct that the application be accepted.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

ABB Technology Ltd filed patent application 2014410506 (“the application”) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) on 4 November 2014 (“the priority date”). Subsequently the name of the applicant was changed to ABB Schweiz AG (“the applicant”).
The application has been subjected to three examination reports. The first two reports contained objections that a number of the claims of the specification lacked novelty and/or an inventive step. While the applicant filed proposed amendments to the specification and filed responsive submissions, the examiner maintained an inventive step objection in the third report.
The applicant subsequently requested to be heard.
The final date for acceptance of the application was 9 February 2019. Nonetheless patent sub-regulation 13.4(1)(g) may be available to extend the time for gaining acceptance to 3 months from the date of the present decision.
SPECIFICATION
The specification describes the alleged invention as relating to a control method in an electrical microgrid having multiple points of common coupling (“PCCs”) with one or several other electrical power grid(s).
As background, the specification describes a microgrid as a localised grouping of electricity generation, energy storage and loads that normally operates connected to a traditional, centralised grid, that is a macro-grid, via a PCC. This single PCC with the macro-grid may be disconnected. This is known as islanding the microgrid.
Microgrids are part of a structure aimed at producing electrical power locally from many small energy sources, such as distributed generators (“DGs”). Examples of distributed power generation systems may be those based on renewable energy resources, such as wind turbines and solar panel systems. In a microgrid, a DG is connected via a converter which controls the output of the DG, that is, the current injected into the microgrid.
When in grid connected mode, that is, connected to the macro-grid, a microgrid supplies the optimised or maximum power outputs from the connected DG sites and the rest of the power…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ABB Schweiz AG

Details

AGLC: ABB Schweiz AG [2019] APO 27
Case: [2019] APO 27
Decision Date: 7 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved ABB Schweiz AG, which filed a patent application for a control method in an electrical microgrid with multiple points of common coupling (PCCs). The application was subjected to examination reports, with the third report maintaining an objection that the claims lacked an inventive step. The applicant requested a hearing, and the delegate, M. G. Kraefft, was tasked with deciding whether the invention had an inventive step and whether the application should be accepted.

The legal issues centred on whether the claimed invention involved an inventive step, as required under section 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Patents Act 1990. The key issue was whether the control of the second power flow in a microgrid based on changes in the first power flow was obvious to a person skilled in the art at the relevant time. The applicant argued that the control of the second power flow in dependence on changes in the first power flow was not established to have been obvious, and the documented problems in the specification were not based on information available as common general knowledge or under subsection 7(3) of the Act.

The delegate considered the arguments and evidence presented by the applicant and the examiner. The delegate found that the problems documented in the specification, which led to the desire to control the second power flow as claimed, were not common general knowledge at the relevant time. The delegate also found that the prior art document D1, which was cited by the examiner, did not consider or address the specific problems related to imbalances in the microgrid due to transient power flows at a second PCC when islanding occurred at a first PCC. As a result, the delegate concluded that the control of the second power flow in dependence on changes in the first power flow, as claimed, was not obvious at the relevant time.

The delegate found that the claimed invention had an inventive step and directed that the application be accepted. The final orders included the acceptance of the patent application and the allowance of claims 1, 11, 12, and 13 as proposed to be amended.

Orders