DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-50 are pending.
Claims 1-50 are rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13, 16-17, 21-34, 37, and 40-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayadev (U.S. PG Pub. 2005/0005621).
As to claims 1, 16, 29, and 40, Jayadev teaches a control system for controlling consumption of energy in an environment, the control system comprising:
a controller having a processor and a real time clock, the real time clock being configured to coordinate operations of the processor with timing of a designated peak period, the processor being configured to determine a minimum pre-operating period and to signal an air conditioning and/or space heating system to enter an operating state for at least the minimum pre-operating period before the designated peak period begins and enter a non-operating state after the designated peak period begins (abstract [0062], claim 1);
an operating program having processing parameters and processing procedure for determining the minimum pre-operating period, wherein the processing parameters and processing procedure comprise determining the minimum pre-operating period using thermal mass of the environment, costs for the consumption of energy, and efficiency of the air conditioning and/or space heating system (abstract [0062], claim 1). Claim 40 has multiple operating periods. On and off during peak times and on during off-peak. This can be seen for instance in fig. 9.
As to claim 2, Jayadev teaches wherein the energy comprises at least one of electricity and natural gas, and further comprising the air conditioning and/or space heating system in the environment that is alternately operated in the operating state and the non-operating state [0036].
As to claims 3 And 21, Jayadev teaches wherein the processing parameters and processing procedure further comprise determining the minimum pre-operating period using at least one of: real-time temperature, real-time humidity, real-time wind, real-time air infiltration, real-time cloud cover, real-time angle of sun, real-time intensity of sun, real-time building occupancy, predicted temperature, predicted humidity, predicted wind, predicted air infiltration, predicted cloud cover, predicted angle of sun, predicted intensity of sun, predicted building occupancy, predicted or planned forced air ventilation, and cooling/heating capacity of the air conditioning and/or space heating system in the environment [0060].
As to claims 4 And 22, Jayadev teaches wherein the costs for the consumption of energy further comprise at least one of: peak energy cost, off-peak energy cost, real time energy cost, peak distribution cost, off-peak distribution cost, peak transmission cost, off-peak transmission cost, demand charges and curtailment incentives[0013].
As to claims 5 And 23, Jayadev teaches wherein each of the peak energy cost, off-peak energy cost, real time energy cost, peak distribution cost, off-peak distribution cost, peak transmission cost, and off-peak transmission cost comprises multiple cost levels[0013].
As to claims 6 And 17, Jayadev teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a notice on current or expected insufficient energy generation or supply [0013 – peak times] and elevated energy price in a region that includes the environment[0012]; and
assign a time period as the designated peak period based on the notice[0012].
As to claim 10, Jayadev teaches further comprising:
an indoor sensor electronically connected to the controller and being configured to generate an input signal to the processor representing an indoor parameter as one of the processing parameters including at least one of temperature and humidity [0041];
an outdoor sensor electronically connected to the controller and being configured to generate an input signal to the processor representing an outdoor parameter as one of the processing parameters including at least one of temperature and humidity;
a storage configured to store parameters of the environment, parameters of the air conditioning and/or space heating system, and parameters of cost for use in the processing parameters and processing procedure[0041].
As to claims 11 And 24, Jayadev teaches wherein the operating state of the air conditioning and/or space heating system has multiple power levels including a low power level, wherein the processing parameters and processing procedure further comprises: designating a comfort level temperature(abstract); determining whether the comfort level temperature will be exceeded in the designated peak period by operating the air conditioning and/or space heating system in the non-operating state during the designated peak period[0013]; and determining a minimum peak-operating period using the thermal mass of the environment and the efficiency of the air conditioning and/or space heating system if it is determined that the comfort level temperature will be exceeded in the designated peak period by operating the air conditioning and/or space heating system in the non-operating state during the designated peak period[0013, 0043, 0054 0062]; and
wherein the processor is configured to determine the minimum pre-operating period and to signal the air conditioning and/or space heating system to enter the operating state at the low power level for at least the minimum peak-operating period during the designated peak period (claims 1 and 2).
As to claim 12, Jayadev teaches wherein the processing parameters and processing procedure further comprises calculating a warmup or cooldown rate for the environment, and wherein the operating program includes an algorithm for calculating the warmup or cooldown rate for the environment for a particular indoor temperature and a particular outdoor temperature[0065].
As to 13, Jayadev teaches wherein the operating state of the air conditioning and/or space heating system has multiple power levels, and wherein the processing parameters and processing procedure further comprises calculating the warmup or cooldown rate for the environment using a table of relationship between warmup or cooldown rates and power levels of the operating state (claim 14) (fig. 9 shows multiple power modes).
As to claim 25, Jayadev teaches further comprising calculating the minimum peak-operating period using at least one of: parameters of the environment, parameters of the air conditioning and/or space heating system, and parameters of cost [0062].
As to claim 26, Jayadev teaches further comprising:
(1) sensing an indoor temperature and sensing an outdoor temperature;
(2) determining a warmup or cooldown rate for the environment based on the indoor temperature and the outdoor temperature; and,
(3) calculating the minimum peak-operating period using the warmup or cooldown rate (claim 1).
As to claim 27, Jayadev teaches wherein the operating state of the air conditioning and/or space heating system has at least three power levels including the low power level and a next power level above the low power level, further comprising:
(1) determining whether the minimum peak-operating period exceeds a remaining time period of the designated peak period;
(2) calculating a second minimum peak-operating period using the thermal mass of the environment and the efficiency of the air conditioning and/or space heating system if it is determined that the minimum peak-operating period exceeds the remaining time period of the designated peak period;
(3) operating the air conditioning and/or space heating system at the next power level above the low power level for at least the second minimum peak-operating period during the designated peak period (claims 1 and 2, [0062]).
As to claim 28, Jayadev teaches further comprising calculating the second minimum peak-operating period using at least one of: parameters of the environment, parameters of the air conditioning and/or space heating system, and parameters of cost[0062].
As to claim 30, Jayadev teaches wherein designating the peak period is based on at least one of: parameters of the environment, parameters of the air conditioning and/or space heating system, parameters of cost, parameters of energy supply and demand, and parameters of carbon dioxide emission[0012].
As to claim 31, Jayadev teaches further comprising analyzing an energy cost[0012].
As to claim 32, Jayadev teaches further comprising calculating the minimum pre-operating period based on the analysis of the energy cost[0012, 0062].
As to claim 33, Jayadev teaches further comprising analyzing an energy consumption[0061-0062].
As to claim 34, Jayadev teaches further comprising calculating the minimum pre-operating period based on the analysis of the energy consumption[0061, 0062].
As to claim 37, Jayadev teaches further comprising recording the consumption of energy; and analyzing a consumption change based on the consumption record[0081].
As to claim 41, Jayadev teaches wherein the processing parameters and processing procedure further comprises determining the first operating period and the second operating period using parameters of the environment and parameters of the air conditioning and/or space heating system in the environment [0062, fig. 9].
As to claim 42, Jayadev teaches wherein the parameters of the environment comprise real-time temperature, real-time humidity, real-time wind, real-time air infiltration, real-time cloud cover, real-time angle of sun, real-time intensity of sun, real-time building occupancy, predicted temperature, predicted humidity, predicted wind, predicted air infiltration, predicted cloud cover, predicted angle of sun, predicted intensity of sun, predicted building occupancy, and wherein the parameters of the air conditioning and/or space heating system in the environment comprise cooling/heating capacity of the air conditioning and/or space heating system and running time of the air conditioning and/or space heating system [0060].
As to claim 43, Jayadev teaches wherein the costs for the consumption of energy comprise peak energy cost, off-peak energy cost, real-time energy cost, peak distribution cost, off-peak distribution cost, real-time distribution cost, peak transmission cost, off-peak transmission cost, real-time transmission cost, demand charges, and curtailment incentives[0013].
As to claim 44, Jayadev teaches wherein designating the peak period and the off-peak period is based on at least one of: parameters of the environment, parameters of the air conditioning and/or space heating system, parameters of cost, parameters of energy supply and demand, and parameters of carbon dioxide emission(Abstract).
As to claim 45, Jayadev teaches wherein the processor is further configured to analyze an energy cost[0061].
As to claim 46, Jayadev teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the first operating period and the second operating period based on the analysis of the energy cost[0062].
As to claim 47, Jayadev teaches wherein the processor is further configured to analyze an energy consumption[0081].
As to claim 48, Jayadev teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the first operating period and the second operating period based on the analysis of the energy consumption[0062].
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayadev (U.S. PG Pub. 2005/0005621) in view of Elbsat (U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0324487).
Jayadev teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach all the limitations of claims 7 and 18. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Elbsat as follows:
As to claims 7 And 18, Elbsat teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive and analyze energy generation or supply information in a region that includes the environment to predict an energy demand in the region[0008]; and Jayadev teaches basing the time period off from a known peak (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Elbsat into the system and methods of Jayadev. The motivation to combine is that since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). In this case, the regional peak period for the peak period of Jayadev. Jayadev would determine the pre-cooling based on Elbsat peak period.
Claim(s) 8, 14-15, 19, 35-36, 38-39, and 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayadev (U.S. PG Pub. 2005/0005621) in view of Swierc (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0082289).
Jayadev teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach all the limitations of claims 8, 14-15, 19, 36, 38-39, and 49-50. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Swierc as follows:
As to claims 8 And 19, Swierc teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive operation information of power plants in a region that includes the environment and analyze carbon dioxide emission based on the operation information to predict carbon dioxide emission in the region[0015-0016, 0028];
assign a time period as the designated peak period based on the prediction of the carbon dioxide emission [0021, 0036].
As to claims 14 And 38, Swierc teaches further comprising a metering device configured to record the consumption of energy[0053]; and an analyzing device configured to analyze a consumption change or a related carbon dioxide emission change based on the consumption record[0053].
As to claims 15 And 39, Swierc teaches wherein the analyzing device is further configured to generate a certifiable report on a reduction of energy consumption or related carbon dioxide emission[0037].
As to claim 35, Swierc teaches further comprising analyzing a carbon dioxide emission [0028].
As to claim 36, Swierc teaches further comprising calculating the minimum pre-operating period based on the analysis of the carbon dioxide emission [0034].
As to claim 49, Swierc teaches wherein the processor is further configured to analyze a carbon dioxide emission [0028].
As to claim 50, Swierc teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the first operating period and the second operating period based on the analysis of the carbon dioxide emission [0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings Swierc into system and methods as disclosed by Jayadev. The motivation to combine is that Swierc teaches operating an appliance prior to peak time can reduce carbon emissions [0010, 0056]
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayadev (U.S. PG Pub. 2005/0005621) in view of Nakayama (U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0207633).
Jayadev teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach all the limitations of claims 9 and 20. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Nakayama as follows:
As to claims 9 And 20, Nakayama teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive information on curtailing full or partial operation of solar or wind power plants in a region that includes the environment for grid operational purpose[0077, 0078, 0100], assign the designated peak period immediately or at a future time period off the designated peak period based on the curtailing information[0100 assign discharging of loads].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Nakayama into the system of Jayadev. The motivation to combine is that Nakayama teaches In a first phase, for each of the prosumers energy loads and energy production may be adjusted and/or optimized. In a second phase, for each time interval an energy amount supplied from the supply side may be adjusted and/or optimized. In a third phase, curtailment of the energy loads in the prosumers may be adjusted and/or optimized based on the optimizations and/or adjustments in phase 1 and phase 2 [0096].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-2-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments to the art start on page 18 with reference to the independent claims. The arguments seem to be alleging that more of the specification should be read into the claims. Specifically, that thermal mass of the environment has a specific definition. This is incorrect. The applicant has given no explicit definition to this. The paragraphs cited do not have an explicit definition. Paragraph 0011 just states that the how the thermal mass can be used. Paragraph 0075 just discusses what the thermal mass refers to or how it may be calculated. Neither of these are explicit definitions. Even in the arguments use e.g., further showing that these are examples not explicit definition. Examiner must give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. This would not be reading examples into a definition. If Applicant would like a specific definition, then it must be included in the claims. As such, Jayadev’s teachings would read on all the independent claims.
As to claim 3, Applicant has states that predicted air infiltration is needed, which it’s not. This is part of a group and only 1 is needed from that group. When actually considering the citation for the group, it is clear that temperature is used. Applicant seems to be referencing a different paragraph than was cited. Claims 21 and 42 have the same argument.
As to claim 6, the citations have been updated to reflect the amendment.
As to claim 11, Applicant has as given the same argument as claim 1, Examiner has already rebutted this above and it will not be repeated here.
As to claim 30, Applicant has states that predicted carbon dioxide is needed, which it’s not. This is part of a group and only 1 is needed from that group. The paragraph clearly states parameters of cost as cited at the end of the group. Claims 46 has the same argument.
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 NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119