DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 27 February 2026.
Claims 1 and 3-11 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 18-24 and 26-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 September 2025 with regards to the prior art disclosing a revenue meter have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 18, the Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 of their response:
“Claim 18 recites, in relevant part, "a revenue meter node associated with at least one of a residential facility, commercial facility, and an industrial facility, and configured to purchase electricity for a facility it is associated with." The Examiner has alleged that Troxell teaches this limitation by citing paragraphs 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 52, and 79, which describe site manager agents that monitor and meter energy consumption at a local site and purchase electricity from substations. Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's interpretation conflates two distinct concepts disclosed in Troxell: (1) software agents that participate in auctions, and (2) hardware monitoring devices that measure consumption.
Troxell describes "site manager agents" as software entities. As Troxell explains, "[a]t its most basic level, an 'agent' is simply an entity that acts on behalf of its user. More specifically, a 'software agent' is a software module that can act on behalf of the user." Troxell, paragraph [0036]. These site manager agents participate in auctions and represent the interests of buildings or sites. See Troxell, paragraphs [0044], [0052], [0079]. However, these are software agents, not hardware node devices.
Separately, Troxell describes "[m]onitoring devices [that] are configured for measurement and metering to account for the utilization of the power. Monitoring devices typically monitor or measure power and electricity consumption (or generation) includes such equipment as: revenue grade meters; current transformers; and data loggers." Troxell, paragraph [0038] (emphasis added). Critically, these revenue grade meters are described only as monitoring devices that measure consumption-they are not described as being configured to purchase electricity.
Thus, Troxell discloses two separate concepts: (1) site manager agents (software) that can purchase electricity through auctions, and (2) revenue grade meters (hardware) that monitor consumption. Troxell does not teach or suggest a single "revenue meter node" that is both a node device associated with a facility and configured to purchase electricity for that facility. The claimed "revenue meter node" is a distinct structural component-a node device with hardware capabilities-that performs both metering functions and purchasing functions. This is fundamentally different from Troxell's architecture, where the purchasing function is performed by software agents and the metering function is performed by separate monitoring devices.
The specification supports this distinction. As described in the As-Filed Specification, "[t]he revenue meter node 602 may be associated with a residential (single or multi-family) facility, a commercial facility, and/or an industrial facility. In some examples, the revenue meter node 602 may be configured to purchase or bid for electricity for the facility it is associated with." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0056]. The revenue meter node is described as a node device similar to the other node devices in the claimed system, each of which "includes an electronic processor, a memory, and a communication interface configured to facilitate communication with one or more other node devices." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0012]. Troxell's revenue grade meters are not described as having such capabilities, nor are they described as being configured to purchase electricity.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art of record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. First, with respect to the claimed element, the Examiner notes that the claim 18 states, “a revenue meter node associated with at least one of a residential facility, commercial facility, and an industrial facility, and configured to purchase electricity for a facility it is associated with.” (Emphasis added). Specifically, the Applicant has claimed “a revenue meter node,” that is associated with at least one of the facilities, and that purchases electricity for the associated facility. Notably, this “meter node” is not stated to be a device, nor is it stated to encompass a physical electricity meter, but instead is merely a node. Further, with regards to the specification, the Applicant states in paragraph 56, “Turning now to FIG. 6, a diagram illustrating a system 600 for utilizing software agents to facilitate various transactions is shown, according to some embodiments. The system 600 may utilize various nodes at various places in a distribution network. For example, the system 600 may include a revenue meter node 602, a service transformer node 604, a substation transformer node 606, and a transmission node 608. The nodes 602, 604, 606, 608 may be similar to node 400 described above. The revenue meter node 602 may be associated with a residential (single or multi-family) facility, a commercial facility, and/or an industrial facility. In some examples, the revenue meter node 602 may be configured to purchase or bid for electricity for the facility it is associated with. In other embodiments, the revenue meter may be configured to provide data to one or more other nodes and/or software agents to generate one or more models, such as load forecasting models and/or generation forecasting models. These may be used as a baseline to set an amount of energy to be purchased at a rate schedule specified by a homeowner or facility operation.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the revenue meter node is configured to purchase electricity for the facility it is associated with, provides data to agents and other nodes, and may be similar to node 400. In this case, the Applicant has not specially defined the meter node as including any hardware or being solely a physical electricity meter, but instead defined is an option to include processing elements defined for node 400. Similarly the Applicant has stated in paragraph 58, “As shown in FIG. 6, the revenue meter node provides information to, and receives information from, a selling agent 610 and/or a purchasing agent 612. The selling agent 610 and the purchasing agent 612 may be similar to the software agents described above. In one example, one or more of the selling agent 610 and/or the purchasing agent 612 reside on the revenue meter node 602.” (Emphasis added). The Applicant additionally states in paragraph 61, “In the above example, it is contemplated that the revenue meter node 602, the service transformer node 604, the substation transformer node 606, and the transmission node 608 are located in close proximity to the stakeholder or equipment they represent. For example, the revenue meter node 602 is likely located at the facility it represents. For an industrial or commercial facility, the revenue meter node 602 may be located at or near the revenue meter associated with the facility. In contrast, for a residential facility such as a single family home, the revenue meter node 602 may be located at a localized level, such as at or within a thermostat of a home. For example, a software agent associated with the revenue meter node 602 may interface with the thermostat to access history, scheduled usage, occupancy, etc. the determine expected loading. In some examples, the software agent may modify the operation of the heating and cooling system to reduce costs to an occupant, in response to the occupant authorizing automated cost control.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the revenue meter node provides information to and receives information from buying and selling agents, which are in the node. Further said revenue meter node can be located near revenue meters or inside a thermostat, and wherein the software agents are further in said revenue meter node. Thus, the Applicant’s specification has set forth that the revenue meter node purchases electricity for the facility that it is associated with, that provides information to included buying and selling agents which do the buying and selling of electricity, and wherein the revenue meter node can be at or near an actual revenue meter. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument that, “Troxell does not teach or suggest a single "revenue meter node" that is both a node device associated with a facility and configured to purchase electricity for that facility,” is not reflective of the claims, as the Applicant has not claimed the revenue meter node as a “node device.” Second, with regards to Troxell, it is noted that the reference states in paragraph 144, “FIG. 10 is a block diagram illustrating an example computer system 550 that may be used in connection with various embodiments described herein. For example, the computer system 550 may be used in conjunction with any of the levels in the hierarchical structure 100 of FIG. 1, including the RTO/ISO level 102, the ESCO/utility level 104, the distribution substation level 106, the power neighborhood/feeder level 108 and the site level 110. The agents that reside at each of the levels in the hierarchical structure 100 may also be software, hardware, or firmware modules, for example, which may be implemented in conjunction with the computer system 550. However, other computer systems and/or architectures may be used, as will be clear to those skilled in the art.” (Emphasis added). Troxell continues in 145, “The computer system 550 preferably includes one or more processors, such as processor 552. Additional processors may be provided, such as an auxiliary processor to manage input/output, an auxiliary processor to perform floating point mathematical operations, a special-purpose microprocessor having an architecture suitable for fast execution of signal processing algorithms (e.g., digital signal processor), a slave processor subordinate to the main processing system (e.g., back-end processor), an additional microprocessor or controller for dual or multiple processor systems, or a coprocessor. Such auxiliary processors may be discrete processors or may be integrated with the processor 552.” (Emphasized added). As shown and emphasized here, Troxell has disclosed that computer systems may be implemented at each level of the hierarchical structure, and that such computer systems include processors. Additionally, as shown and emphasized here, Troxell has disclosed that the various agents described throughout the disclosure, can be software, hardware, or firmware modules, which may be implemented in conjunction with the computer system 550. As such, Troxell has disclosed the agents, which include agents, which can include hardware and/or software, and wherein the agents that include those that purchase electricity for the agent’s associated facility, as addressed in paragraph 9 of the previous Non-Final Rejection mailed 28 November 2025. As such, Troxell has disclosed the equivalent of the Applicant’s claimed revenue meter node, as Troxell has disclosed node agents that purchase electricity for the agent’s associated facility. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 with regards the claimed architecture have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 10 of their response, “Troxell's hierarchical structure includes an ISO level, a utility level, a distribution substation level, and a site level. See Troxell, paragraph [0040]. This is a fundamentally different architecture from the claimed system. Troxell does not teach or suggest the specific combination of distinct node devices recited in claim 18, each with its own electronic processor and specific functionality, working together to facilitate energy transactions as claimed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art of record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that Troxell does not disclose the entire claimed structure, the Examiner notes that the rejection did not state this, but instead, the previous and current rejection is made in view of a combination of references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, it was noted that Troxell teaches a of market participant node device, a market authority node device, a network operator node device, and a revenue meter node; and that Forbes discloses an engineering analysis authority node device. With regards to Troxell, it is noted that paragraph 15 states, “In one embodiment, the infrastructure comprises a hierarchical arrangement of an electric grid. At the distribution level, the hierarchical arrangement includes one or more power neighborhoods. Each of the power neighborhoods includes site manager agents each of which represent the interests of a site located within the power neighborhood. A plurality of the site manager agents communicatively coupled as well as electrically coupled to one another comprises a power neighborhood.” (Emphasis added). Paragraphs 34 continues, “One method, for example, as disclosed herein allows for an auction process, which may be network based and the agents themselves may be the participants. As participants, the agents may post auction sessions for the sale or purchase of energy or may bid independently and autonomously into the auction sessions posted by other participants. Auction sessions and/or bids are developed by agents for the energy based on the various states that may occur, including site specific energy needs, local DER asset capabilities, the state of the infrastructure (i.e., any disruptions in the infrastructure that may have occurred), and the price of the energy that is currently available from the grid via the distribution substation agent. For example, the auction session may start at a certain specified price and then the price is reduced over time until one of the agents determines that it is in the interest of its neighborhood or area of control to buy the energy at that price. The entity auctioning the energy may withdraw it at any time if no agent bids for the energy.” (Emphasis added). Troxell continues on paragraph 53, “Periodically, the site manager agents 118 update auction status information: 1) in order to identify new opportunities for the sale or purchase of excess capacity, 2) whenever it receives a signal from the distribution substation agents 116 indicating that auction board connectivity has changed, and 3) whenever the site manager agents 118 have a desperation level that triggers immediate action.” (Emphasis added). In this case, Troxell states in paragraph 59, “The distribution substation agents 116 also "host" the power neighborhood auctions. The neighborhood auctions may be conducted based on the Dutch auction process without an active auctioneer. Site manager agents 118, working through the website software may transmit auction session data that are then posted to the website. The website software may then conduct the auction session by automatically updating the asking price per the auction set up directions. It is the responsibility of the individual site manager agents 118 to access the posted auction session data and to submit bids directly to the distribution substation agents 116 hosting the individual auction session of interest.” (Emphasis added). Troxell continues in paragraph 72, “The ESCO agents 114, via participation in the power neighborhood auctions may aggregate excess DG and/or curtailable load capacity and subsequently bid this capacity into higher level markets such as the auction hosted by the RTO. The existing energy infrastructure also provides for the ESCO agents 114 collecting and processing of metering information for billing purposes. This same infrastructure may therefore be used in conjunction with transaction information provided by the distribution substation agents 116 to provide a monthly transaction "true-up" service for the various distribution substation agents 116 and the power neighborhoods that they represent.” (Emphasis added). Troxell continues in paragraph 74, “Unlike the ESCO agents 114, the RTO agents 112 may be independent entities that are not driven by profit. The RTO agents 112 may coordinate protection and control activities as well as coordinate and/or participate in auction related activities. Activities of the RTO agents 112 may be divided into the following basic areas: (1) coordination of protection and control systems; (2) hosting RTO level auctions; and (3) RTO auction transaction record keeper and auditing functions.” (Emphasis added). Troxell continues in paragraph 75, “In one embodiment, the RTO agents 112 may define the RTO level auction board boundaries based on transmission and sub-transmission connectivity (and/or capacity) just as the ESCO agents 114 defined the boundaries of the ESCO level auctions. Note that the RTO level auction is, by necessity, more complex since it incorporates both energy and capacity markets and involves a larger number of competing entities. In addition, the uncertainty of transaction paths becomes more pronounced given the complexity of the networks involved.” (Emphasis added). Troxell continues in paragraph 92, “At the neighborhood level, one embodiment of the present invention uses a double Dutch auction format at the website auction 302, where site manager agents 314A through 314G (or the distribution substation agent 116 on behalf of the local utility) post auction sessions for either the sale or purchase of capacity on the website auction 302 (managed by the distribution substation agent 116). In one embodiment, the Dutch auction format differs from the traditional "open outcry" also known as the English auction format in that bidding begins high and then declines at a predetermined rate (price decrement and timing). The bid price, decrement value, and decrement timing may be posted as part of the auction session and are therefore known to all bidders.” (Emphasis added). Thus, as shown here, and as discussed above with respect to the Applicant’s first argument regarding the revenue meter node, Troxell has disclosed market participant node devices, that contain computer devices that communicate with each other to participate and manage an auction, wherein market participant nodes bid for electricity, agents (acting as market authority nodes) that are at a higher level of hierarchy that run and manage the auction and negotiate deals, operator node devices that include the highest level of parties and include energy providers, energy transmission parties, and regional controllers, and wherein these parties manage energy transfer and auctions for levels below them, and further include revenue metering node agents that purchase electricity for it’s associated facility. Regarding Forbes, it is noted that paragraph 93-97 and 109 disclose a Coordinator that monitors and adjusts grid metrics, which include voltage and current, in order to maintain grid stability during transactions; the Coordinator additionally facilitates trading across balancing areas and regions for supply and load curtailment management, wherein the purpose if for increasing power available, operating power reserves, and for grid stability purposes. Thus, Forbes has disclosed an engineering analysis authority node device, as claimed. As such, the combination of Troxell and Forbes have disclosed the various node devices and revenue meter node as claimed. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 with regards the combination of references have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 10 of their response, “Even assuming, arguendo, that individual elements could be found across the cited references, the specific combination of all five distinct node devices-including the revenue meter node as a separate structural component configured to purchase electricity-working together as claimed is not taught or suggested by Troxell, Forbes, Yan, or Mohagheghi, whether considered alone or in combination. The Examiner has not provided a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references to arrive at the specific system architecture claimed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art of record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is noted that paragraph 15 of the previous Non-Final rejection 18 November 2025 states, “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of market participant devices, market authority devices, and network operator devices generating software agents which communicate in order to facilitate energy transactions of Troxell, with the system and method of automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions of Forbes. By analyzing a prospective energy transaction before allowing it to be processed, in a manner that ensures that it meets the requirements set forth by each participant, including the grid stability set by the utility operator, the combination would predictably prevent transactions from taking place which damage or hinder the transmission of electricity.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the previous Non-Final rejection did set forth the rationale for how the cited references would be combined, and the rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the combination as obvious. In this case, by analyzing a prospective energy transaction before allowing it to be processed, in a manner that ensures that it meets the requirements set forth by each participant, including the grid stability set by the utility operator, the combination would predictably prevent transactions from taking place which damage or hinder the transmission of electricity. Thus, the Examiner has shown the rationale to combine the references, and in particular, to form the combined architecture of the claimed invention, as stated in the previous rejection. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-20, 21, 24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxell et al. (US 2007/0124026 A1) (hereinafter Troxell), in view of Forbes (US 2014/0018969 A1) (hereinafter Forbes), in view of Yan et al. (US 2005/0137959 A1) (hereinafter Yan), and further in view of Mohagheghi et al. (US 2013/0173331 A1) (hereinafter Mohagheghi).
With respect to claim 18, Troxell teaches:
A of market participant node device, wherein the market participant node device is associated with an energy market participant and wherein the market participant node device includes a first electronic processor configured to automatically generate one or more energy market participant software agents to automatically facilitate an electrical power transaction by generating a bid for a quantity of electrical power (See at least paragraphs 14-17, 34, 35, 36, 40, 43, 44-47, 54, 98, and 144 which describe a hierarchal structure of nodes, including a site level, power neighborhood level, substation level, utility level, and regional level; and wherein each level contains computer devices that communicate with each other and participate/manage an auction for a quantity of electric power. In addition, see at least paragraphs 18, 34, 52, 55, 59, 69, 87, 92, and 94 which describe the agents of market participants generating bids for quantities of electrical power).
A of market authority node device, wherein the market authority node device is associated with a market authority and wherein the market participant node device includes a second electronic processor configured to generate one or more energy market authority software agents to facilitate the electrical power transaction by negotiating the bid for a quantity of electrical power (See at least paragraphs 14-18, 34, 35, 40, 43, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 66, 80, and 144 which describe a hierarchal structure of nodes, including a site level, power neighborhood level, substation level, utility level, and regional level; and wherein each level contains computer devices that communicate with each other and participate/manage the auction, and wherein substation nodes run auctions for energy supply/demand for neighborhoods that report to them, and participate in auctions run by utilities above them. In addition, see at least paragraphs 18, 34, 52, 55, 59, 69, 87, 92, and 94 which describe the agents of market participants generating bids and negotiating for quantities of electrical power).
A network operator node device, wherein the market authority node device is associated with the network operator node device, wherein the network operator node device is associated with a network operator and configured to generate one or more network operator software agents to facilitate the electrical power transaction, wherein the network operator node device includes a third electronic processor (See at least paragraphs 14-18, 34, 35, 40, 66-70, 72-77, and 144 which describe which describe a hierarchal structure of nodes, including a site level, power neighborhood level, substation level, utility level, and regional level; and wherein each level contains computer devices that communicate with each other and participate/manage the auction, wherein the highest level contains energy providers, energy transmission parties, and regional controllers, and wherein these parties manage energy transfer and auctions for levels below them).
A revenue meter node associated with at least one of a residential facility, commerical facility, and an industrial facility, and configured to purchase electricity for a facility it is associated with (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 52, and 79 which describe site agents that monitor and meter energy consumption at a local site, and wherein the agents purchase electricity from substations).
Wherein the market participant node device, the market authority device, and the network operator node device are configured to communicate with each other to facilitate a proposed energy transaction (See at least paragraphs 14-18, 34, 35, 56, 57, 59, 60, 66, 67, 69, 70, and 73-77 which describe the various devices at the various levels communicating to facilitate energy transactions, including via the running of auctions for energy supply and demand).
Wherein the one or more market authority software agents are configured to determine the viability of the proposed energy transaction (See at least paragraphs 18, 56, 57, 59, 65, 67, 69, 72, 81, 94, and 108-114 which describe an auction runner verifying bids and accepted transactions on the auction, and cancelling transactions to assist in grid health and stability).
Wherein the market authority node device maintains official records or executed contracts for the purchase of and sale of electrical power (See at least paragraphs 56, 63-65, and 74-77 which describe a market authority maintaining records of transactions for the purchase of and sale of electrical power).
Troxell discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Troxell does not explicitly disclose the following, however Forbes teaches:
An engineering analysis authority node device configured to determine the viability of a proposed energy transaction from a design perspective, wherein the engineering authority node device includes a fourth electronic processor; wherein the market participant node device, the market authority device, the engineering analysis authority node device, and the network operator node devices are configured to communicate with each other to facilitate a proposed energy transaction (See at least paragraphs 93-97, 109, and 111 which describe automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions).
Wherein the network operator node device is configured generate a control signal to remotely control a generator to provide power to the energy market participant in response to the proposed energy transaction being determined to be viable, wherein remotely controlling the generator includes adjusting at least one of a voltage and a current within a distribution network associated with the generator (See at least paragraphs 93-97, 109, and 111 which describe grid and utility coordinators sending control signals to control the generation and routing of power to and from participants in response to transactions being determined viable, wherein the generation includes altering the grid metrics, including voltage and current, within the grid).
Wherein the engineering analysis authority node device determines the viability of a proposed energy transaction from a design perspective based on determining that sufficient levels of ancillary services will be purchased as part of the electrical power transaction (See at least paragraphs 93-97, 109, and 111 which describe automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions. It is additionally noted that such determination is also to determine if transactions will be able to balance power across areas for supply and load curtailment management, increasing power available, operating reserves, and perform grid stability, which the Examiner notes are ancillary services to a power transaction).
Wherein the network operator node device is further configured to monitor transmission networks for voltage levels and power transmission (See at least paragraphs 93-97, 109, and 111 which describe a network operator node monitoring transmission networks for voltage and power levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of market participant devices, market authority devices, and network operator devices generating software agents which communicate in order to facilitate energy transactions of Troxell, with the system and method of automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions of Forbes. By analyzing a prospective energy transaction before allowing it to be processed, in a manner that ensures that it meets the requirements set forth by each participant, including the grid stability set by the utility operator, the combination would predictably prevent transactions from taking place which damage or hinder the transmission of electricity.
The combination of Troxell and Forbes discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Troxell and Forbes do not explicitly disclose the following, however Yan teaches:
Determining the viability of a proposed energy transaction from a design perspective based on determining that sufficient levels of ancillary services will be purchased as part of the electrical power transaction, wherein the ancillary services include a spinning reserve (See at least paragraphs 10 and 36 which describe the purchase of ancillary services in order to maintain grid stability, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves).
Wherein the network operator node device is further configured to request spinning reserves to be dispatched, and receive information about spinning reserves via the engineering analysis authority node device (See at least paragraphs 10 and 36 which describe the purchase of ancillary services in order to maintain grid stability, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of market participant devices, market authority devices, and network operator devices generating software agents which communicate in order to facilitate energy transactions of Troxell, with the system and method of automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions of Forbes, with the system and method of purchasing of ancillary services in order to maintain grid stability, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves of Yan. By purchasing ancillary services in order to stabilize a grid, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves, an energy management service would predictably be able to ensure any energy transactions do not destabilize the grid, while also ensuring that enough energy is being purchased in order to maintain required reserves.
The combination of Troxell, Forbes, and Yan discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Troxell, Forbes, and Yan do not explicitly disclose the following, however Mohagheghi teaches:
Wherein the network operator node device is further configured to monitor transmission networks for voltage levels and power transmission, issue requests for demand reduction in response to demand exceeds an available supply, request spinning reserves to be dispatched, and receive information about spinning reserves via the engineering analysis authority node device (See at least paragraphs 12 and 17 which describe a network operator device that monitors the frequency and voltage of a grid network, issues requests for demand reduction in response to demand exceeding supply, and using spinning reserves to increase supply).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of market participant devices, market authority devices, and network operator devices generating software agents which communicate in order to facilitate energy transactions of Troxell, with the system and method of automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions of Forbes, with the system and method of purchasing of ancillary services in order to maintain grid stability, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves of Yan, with the system and method of a network operator device that monitors the frequency and voltage of a grid network, issues requests for demand reduction in response to demand exceeding supply, and using spinning reserves to increase supply of Mohagheghi. By tracking grid parameters, issuing request for demand reduction to endpoint devices in response to demand exceeding demand and using spinning reserves to balance, a network operator would predictably be able to manage grid stability and enable parties to consume electricity when needed, while also allowing providers to provide energy when possible.
With respect to claim 19, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein the one or more market participant software agents include an energy buyer software agent, an energy seller software agent, and an infrastructure owner agent (See at least paragraphs 14-18, 34, and 36 which describes each of the nodes generating software agents to facilitate the energy transactions, and wherein the agents represent buyers, sellers, and utility operators).
With respect to claim 20, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein the energy buyer software agent generates a request to buy electric power (See at least paragraphs 14, 18, 43-47, 54, 80, 81, 98, and 102 which describe an energy buyer agent generating a request to buy power).
Wherein the energy seller software agent and the infrastructure owner agent process the generated request (See at least paragraphs 14, 18, 34, 43-47, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 65, 66, 73-77, 80, 81, and 108-114 which describe sellers and utilities owners processing requests for energy supply).
Wherein processing the generated request comprises determining a price based on one or more of power generation capacity, power prices, infrastructure capacity, and infrastructure costs (See at least paragraphs 18, 19, 34, 43-47, 53, 56, 69, 70, 80, 81, and 94 which describe generating pricing for energy supply based on energy costs and capacity).
With respect to claim 21, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein the network operator node is further configured to determine a load imbalance of the distribution network (See at least paragraphs 140-143 which describe determining the load balance/imbalance of a utility grid).
With respect to claim 24, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein the network operator node is configured to: monitor one or more parameters of the distribution network to determine whether demand exceeds supply; generating requests for demand reduction based on determining that the demand exceeds supply; and transmitting the request to the market participant node (See at least paragraphs 47, 49-53, and 102 which describe monitoring the demand and supply of energy in a grid, and issuing demand response and load curtailment signals to participants in order to reduce the demand).
With respect to claim 26, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein the revenue meter node is further configured to generate one or more models (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 45, 52, and 79 which describe site agents that monitor and meter energy consumption at a local site, and wherein the agents purchase electricity from substations. In addition, the local agent additional generates forecasts of the local site’s future demand).
With respect to claim 27, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claims 18 and 26 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein the one or more models include one or more of a forecasting model and a generation forecasting model (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 45, 52, and 79 which describe site agents that monitor and meter energy consumption at a local site, and wherein the agents purchase electricity from substations. In addition, the local agent additional generates forecasts of the local site’s future demand).
With respect to claim 28, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein the revenue meter is further configured to communicate with one or more of a service transformer node, a substation transformer node, and a transmission node (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 52, and 79 which describe site agents that monitor and meter energy consumption at a local site, and wherein the agents purchase electricity from substations, via communication, including pricing rates, from the substations).
With respect to claim 29, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claims 18 and 28 as stated above. In addition, Troxell teaches:
Wherein one or more of the service transformer node, the substation transformer node, and the transmission node are configured to provide infrastructure information to the revenue meter, wherein the infrastructure information includes a cost associated with receiving power over an infrastructure associated with one or more of the service transformer node, the substation transformer node, and the transmission node (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 43, 52, 53, 59, 93, 94, 99, 100, and Table 1 which describe the substation agents communicating information with local agents, including pricing information for receiving power from the substation).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxell, Forbes, Yan, and Mohagheghi as applied to claims 18 and 21 as stated above, and further in view of Pollack et al. (US 2011/0004358 A1) (hereinafter Pollack).
With respect to claim 22, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claims 18 and 21 as stated above. Troxell, Forbes, Yan, and Mohagheghi do not explicitly disclose the following, however Pollack teaches:
Wherein the network operator node is further configured to adjust spinning reserves of the distribution network in response to determining the load imbalance (See at least paragraphs 30, 31, 34, 153, and 154 which describe a grid operator communicating with participants and suppliers in order to manage grid stability and provide power, wherein when in order to balance a grid, the operator can adjust/release spinning and non-spinning reserves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of market participant devices, market authority devices, and network operator devices generating software agents which communicate in order to facilitate energy transactions of Troxell, with the system and method of automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions of Forbes, with the system and method of purchasing of ancillary services in order to maintain grid stability, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves of Yan, with the system and method of a network operator device that monitors the frequency and voltage of a grid network, issues requests for demand reduction in response to demand exceeding supply, and using spinning reserves to increase supply of Mohagheghi, with the system and method of a grid operator communicating with participants and suppliers in order to manage grid stability and provide power, wherein when in order to balance a grid, the operator can adjust/release spinning and non-spinning reserves of Pollack. By adjusting spinning reserves during a determination of grid imbalance, a grid operator will predictably be able to quickly ensure that grid health is maintained and that customers receive power without interruptions.
With respect to claim 23, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Troxell, Forbes, Yan, and Mohagheghi do not explicitly disclose the following, however Pollack teaches:
Wherein the network operator node is further configured to dispatch spinning reserves of the distribution network to increase the capacity of the distribution network (See at least paragraphs 30, 31, 34, 153, and 154 which describe a grid operator communicating with participants and suppliers in order to manage grid stability and provide power, wherein when in order to increase capacity of a grid, the operator can adjust/release spinning and non-spinning reserves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of market participant devices, market authority devices, and network operator devices generating software agents which communicate in order to facilitate energy transactions of Troxell, with the system and method of automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions of Forbes, with the system and method of purchasing of ancillary services in order to maintain grid stability, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves of Yan, with the system and method of a network operator device that monitors the frequency and voltage of a grid network, issues requests for demand reduction in response to demand exceeding supply, and using spinning reserves to increase supply of Mohagheghi, with the system and method of a grid operator communicating with participants and suppliers in order to manage grid stability and provide power, wherein when in order to balance a grid, the operator can adjust/release spinning and non-spinning reserves of Pollack. By adjusting spinning reserves during a determination of grid imbalance, a grid operator will predictably be able to quickly ensure that grid health is maintained and that customers receive power without interruptions.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxell, Forbes, Yan, and Mohagheghi as applied to claim 18 as stated above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0178158 A1) (hereinafter Chen).
With respect to claim 30, Troxell/Forbes/Yan/Mohagheghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Troxell, Forbes, Yan, and Mohagheghi do not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen teaches:
Wherein the revenue meter node is configured to interface with a thermostat associated with the facility to access one or more of a use history, a scheduled usage, and an occupancy to determined an expected loading (See at least paragraphs 45, 46, 56, 61, 94, and 95 which describe user homes using a smart thermostat to track use history, scheduled usage, and occupancy, wherein this information is used to plan for and purchase electricity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of market participant devices, market authority devices, and network operator devices generating software agents which communicate in order to facilitate energy transactions of Troxell, with the system and method of automating energy transactions, wherein a coordinator determines if proposed transactions are viable based on meeting requirements, such as grid stability and other metrics set by parties in the transaction, and wherein a consumer device, coordinator device, supplier device, and utility device all communicate in order to complete energy transactions of Forbes, with the system and method of purchasing of ancillary services in order to maintain grid stability, wherein the ancillary services include spinning reserves of Yan, with the system and method of a network operator device that monitors the frequency and voltage of a grid network, issues requests for demand reduction in response to demand exceeding supply, and using spinning reserves to increase supply of Mohagheghi, with the system and method of user homes using a smart thermostat to track use history, scheduled usage, and occupancy, wherein this information is used to plan for and purchase electricity of Chen. By utilizing a smart thermostat to track usage and scheduled use, an agent will predictably be able to know the optimal energy to purchase from a substation, thus ensuring the least expensive to users.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
6 April 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights