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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 10/02/2025.
2. Drawing Objection is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 10/02/2025.
3. Claim rejection of Claim 8 under USC 112(b) is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 10/02/2025.
4. Claim rejection of Claims 1-20 under USC 101 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 10/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P-13-16, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 8-13 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection has been withdrawn and replaced with the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of 35 U.S.C 103 is made over Cipriani (US 2017/0286838 A1) in view of Imes (US 2010/0076613 A1).
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.
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 8-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani, et al. (US 2017/0286838 A1, “Cipriani”) in view of Imes, et al. (US 2010/0076613 A1, “Imes”).
With regards to Claim 1, what Cipriani teaches is receiving current meteorological data associated with a location of an energy generating asset; and (Cipriani 0012, “In another aspect of the invention, a system comprises a sensor for collecting meteorological data in a region of a solar farm for use in a numerical weather model”.)
predicting an energy production value produced by the energy generating asset at a predetermined time based on the current meteorological data using a trained model for the energy generating asset, (Cipriani 0011, “The regression model for the generated cluster is used to compute a predicted power output for the day.” Where the cited regression model is read as being the trained model.)
the trained model being trained using a machine learning algorithm that utilizes historical and forecasted meteorological data associated with the location of the energy generating asset and historical production capability data associated with a historical production capability of the energy generating asset. (Cipriani 0009, “In one aspect of the invention, a method comprises receiving historical power profile data [i.e. historical power production] and historical weather micro-forecast data at a given location for a set of days. Based on power output features of days of the set of days, clusters are generated. A classification model that assigns a day to a generated cluster according to weather features of the day is created. For each generated cluster, a regression model that takes as input weather features of a day and outputs predicted solar power is built.”).
Cipriani do not explicitly disclose:
automatically adjusting an operational setting of the energy generating asset in response to predicting that the energy production value exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
Imes disclose:
automatically adjusting an operational setting of the energy generating asset in response to predicting that the energy production value exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Imes: 0024, “The present disclosure employs a curtailment and storage module that includes localized logic that can automatically curtail assets as needed, while allowing energy storage during peak congestion periods. Further, the local logic can also automatically dispatch stored energy during forecasted or detected peak demand periods”).
Cipriani and Imes are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in renewable power generation management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cipriani and Imes wherein predicting energy production is based on expected downtime or curtailment of energy production. As mentioned in Imes 0024, the “ability to curtail and store energy is important for the future reliance and acceptance of alternative energy assets and will lead to increased grid stability.” It would also be important as factoring of curtailment would lead to more accurate measurement and management of energy production.
With regards to Claim 2, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, what Cipriani teaches is receiving the historical meteorological data associated with the location of the energy generating asset; (Cipriani 0009, “In one aspect of the invention, a method comprises receiving historical power profile data and historical weather micro-forecast data at a given location for a set of days.”)
receiving the historical production capability data associated with the historical production capability of the energy generating asset; and (Cipriani 0009, “In one aspect of the invention, a method comprises receiving historical power profile data and historical weather micro-forecast data at a given location for a set of days.”; Cipriani 0054, “The system may also include power meters 722 such as net meters for measuring power output of the solar farm.” Citation is read as measuring the production capability associated with the energy generating asset, in this case the solar farm.)
training the model using at least a portion of the historical meteorological data and the historical production capability data. (Cipriani 0009, “In one aspect of the invention, a method comprises receiving historical power profile data and historical weather micro-forecast data at a given location for a set of days. Based on power output features of days of the set of days, clusters are generated… For each generated cluster, a regression model that takes as input weather features of a day and outputs predicted solar power is built.”)
With regards to Claim 3, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Imes teaches (Imes 0027, “Information handling system 102 can also output a forecasted congestion output 114 of a portion or portions of a grid, a forecasted curtailment output 116 which can include a proactive curtailment output, a forced curtailment output, or any combination thereof, a forecasted energy pricing output 118 of a single generator, multiple generators, or any combination thereof, and a pricing table output 120 which can include multiple pricing levels or pricing curves of a single generator, multiple generators, or any combination thereof.” Forecasted curtailment output is read as the output during expected curtailment of energy production. Forced curtailment was discussed in Imes 0003 where “Other times, when wind levels are low, little or no energy is produced, causing a deficiency or lack of available energy.”).
Motivation to combine Cipriani, Imes and Hyun is same here as claim 1.
With regards to Claim 8, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, what Cipriani teaches is wherein the current meteorological data comprises a weather forecast for the location at the predetermined time. (Cipriani 0038, “hyperlocal weather forecast may predict the weather in a square kilometer in 10-minute intervals, or less, 72 hours, or more, ahead of time.”), wherein the information includes measured windspeed, measured wind direction, measured temperature, measured dew point, measured solar irradiation, or a combination thereof (Cipriani 0055, “historical weather micro-forecast data for a hybrid wind-solar farm 716 (FIG. 7) may include additional observational meteorological data pertaining to wind, for example, wind direction and wind speed.”).
With regards to Claim 9, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, what Cipriani teaches is wherein the historical production capability data comprises at least one of a historical availability of the energy generating asset or a historical energy production of the energy generating asset. (Cipriani 0009, “In one aspect of the invention, a method comprises receiving historical power profile data and historical weather micro-forecast data at a given location for a set of days.”; Cipriani 0054, “The system may also include power meters 722 such as net meters for measuring power output of the solar farm.” Citation is read as measuring the production capability associated with the energy generating asset, in this case the solar farm.)
With regards to Claim 10, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, what Cipriani teaches is wherein the energy generating asset comprises at least one of a wind turbine or a solar energy array. (Cipriani 0055, “Power output measurements may include power generated by a PV system 718 and power generated by wind turbines 720.”)
With regards to Claim 11, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, what Cipriani teaches is wherein the historical meteorological data includes historical wind speeds associated with the location. (Cipriani 0055, “historical weather micro-forecast data for a hybrid wind-solar farm 716 (FIG. 7) may include additional observational meteorological data pertaining to wind, for example, wind direction and wind speed.”)
With regards to Claim 12, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the analogous limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Cipriani teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (Cipriani 0063, “The computer program product may include a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.”)
With regards to Claim 13, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 12. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 2 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
With regards to Claim 14, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 12. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 3 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
With regards to Claim 17, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the analogous limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Cipriani teaches an apparatus, comprising: (Cipriani 0069, “The computer readable program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus”.)
at least one processor; and (Cipriani 0068, “These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer”.)
at least one memory, the at least one memory storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (Cipriani 0059, “One or more operating systems 910, and one or more application programs 928, for example, solar power prediction program 112, are stored on one or more of the computer readable storage media 908 for execution by one or more of the processors...In the illustrated embodiment, each of the computer readable storage media 908 may be a magnetic disk storage device of an internal hard drive, CD-ROM, DVD, memory stick, magnetic tape, magnetic disk, optical disk, a semiconductor storage device such as RAM, ROM, EPROM, flash memory or any other computer-readable tangible storage device that can store a computer program and digital information.”)
With regards to Claim 18, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 17. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 2 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
With regards to Claim 19, Cipriani teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 17. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 3 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claims 4-5, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani, et al. (US 2017/0286838 A1, “Cipriani”), in view of Imes, et al. (US 2010/0076613 A1, “Imes”), further in view of Hyun, et al. (US 2018/0340515 A1, “Hyun”).
With regards to Claim 4, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. What Cipriani, in view of Imes doesn’t explicitly teach is determining a maintenance event window for the energy generating asset based on the predicted energy production value.
However, Hyun teaches determining a maintenance event window for the energy generating asset based on the predicted energy production value. (Hyun 0029, “In some examples, based on the predicted power output for the upcoming time period, the system may perform one or more control functions to control the system and or the wind turbines. For example, if the power output is predicted to be very low, e.g., so low that the wind turbine is unable to produce at least a threshold level of power, the system may send a signal to cause the wind turbine to be shut down since the wind turbine will not break even on power output vs. power required to operate the wind turbine. For instance, the wind turbine may be shut down to perform routine maintenance or inspection.”)
Cipriani, Imes and Hyun are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in modeling of energy production from weather-dependent renewable energy. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cipriani, Imes and Hyun to include determining a maintenance event window based on energy production. This would be important to the function of the stated invention where it allows for the selection of a downtime that has the least impact on overall power output. As mentioned in Hyun 0048, “the control application 144 may determine that the loss of power production due to the maintenance during the upcoming time period may be minimal as compared to what the loss of power production may be at other times when the power output would be higher.”
With regards to Claim 5, Cipriani in view of Imes and Hyun teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 4. In addition, Hyun teaches wherein the maintenance event window is determined based on the predicted energy production value being less than a predetermined threshold value. (Hyun 0029, “In some examples, based on the predicted power output for the upcoming time period, the system may perform one or more control functions to control the system and or the wind turbines. For example, if the power output is predicted to be very low, e.g., so low that the wind turbine is unable to produce at least a threshold level of power, the system may send a signal to cause the wind turbine to be shut down since the wind turbine will not break even on power output vs. power required to operate the wind turbine. For instance, the wind turbine may be shut down to perform routine maintenance or inspection.”).
Motivation to combine Cipriani, Imes and Hyun is same here as claim 4.
With regards to Claim 15, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 12. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 5 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
With regards to Claim 20, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 17. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 5 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
7. Claims 6-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani, et al. (US 2017/0286838 A1, “Cipriani”), in view of Imes, et al. (US 2010/0076613 A1, “Imes”), further in view of Price, et al. (US 2019/0385182 A1, “Price”).
With regards to Claim 6, Cipriani, in view of Imes teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. What Cipriani, in view of Imes doesn’t explicitly teach is providing, based on the predicted energy production value, at least a portion of a current energy production produced by the energy generating asset to at least one of a cryptocurrency mining operation or at least one energy storage device.
However, Price teaches providing, based on the predicted energy production value, at least a portion of a current energy production produced by the energy generating asset to at least one of a cryptocurrency mining operation or at least one energy storage device. (Price 0016, “In addition, batteries may receive energy from distributed renewable generation sources located in close proximity to the batteries.”)
Cipriani, Imes and Price are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in renewable energy management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cipriani, Imes and Price to include providing a portion of the generated energy towards batteries. This would be important to the application as the energy can be stored as needed for use by consumers. As mentioned in Price Paragraph 0069, “As a specific use example, consider a scenario where a user has purchased and installed a battery in their home that is used to store energy from the electric grid and power their home from the stored energy.”
With regards to Claim 7, Cipriani in view of Imes and Price teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 6. Additionally, Price teaches wherein providing of the at least a portion of the current energy production to the cryptocurrency mining operation or at least one energy storage device is further based on a pricing forecast for produced energy. (Price 0051, “The forecasted energy price curve may then be used to charge and discharge an energy storage device (e.g., a battery) at particular points in a day.”)
Motivation to combine Cipriani, Imes and Price is same here as claim 6.
With regards to Claim 16, Cipriani, in view of Ines teaches the prerequisite limitations of Claim 12. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 6 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
Examination Considerations
8. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers (or paragraphs) in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific imitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
9. The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. "Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 105455, 44USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d, 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)" (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, I 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
10. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to prior art to assist the applicant to better understand the nature of the prior art, application of such prior art and, as appropriate, to further indicate other prior art that maybe applied in other office actions. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution. However, and unless otherwise stated, the Examiner's Notes are not prior art but a link to prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would find inherently appropriate.
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
12. 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights