DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 11/28/2025 which was in response to the office action mailed on 8/28/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, 16-19, 22-23 and 26-27 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, 16-19, 22-23 and 26-27 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11, 14-15, 20-21 and 24-25 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 8 and 27 is/are independent.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome prior Specification objection(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/28/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 8-9 regarding various objections that have been addressed by Applicant. Applicant further states in Pg. 9-10 a recitation of the currently amended claims. Finally, in Pg. 10-11 in “Remarks”, Applicant states that Para. 35 and 121 of Lee disclose high-level calculating of energy consumption by facilities and Par. 44 discloses setting control points. Thus, Lee does not teach controlling each equipment to satisfy set limit and total power usage of facilities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Lee teaches controlling each equipment to satisfy set limit and total power usage. This is because Lee discloses in Para. 121 that devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage. Thus, each equipment is controlled, and they are controlled in a manner so as to satisfy set limit as required by the optimization or efficient management, and the total power usage is thus controlled because each equipment is controlled. Thus, Lee teaches the newly amended limitations that disclose controlling each equipment to satisfy set limit and total power usage as claimed.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, 16-19, 22-23 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0184577) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Takeuchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0392534) (hereinafter “Takeuchi”).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches a power control system for performing power control such that a total power usage of a plurality of facilities satisfies a…power usage condition, (Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage)
the power control system comprising: a processor; a memory to store a program which, when executed by the processor, the processor performs processes (Para. 150 - - memory stores program to control; Fig. 3, Para. 61, 230 - - computer is used)
of: acquiring information on power usages by equipment devices installed in the facilities; (Para. 48-51 - - equipment devices are monitored, i.e. power usage by equipment devices in the facilities is acquired)
predicting power usages of the facilities in which the equipment devices are installed, (Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated)
based on the information on the power usages by the equipment devices; (Para. 73 - - power usage for past time section is used)
and controlling the total power usage of the plurality of facilities, based on the power usages of the facilities predicted by the processor, (Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage, i.e. power usage condition)
wherein the processor predicts the total power usage of the plurality of facilities, based on the power usages of the facilities predicted by the processor, (Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage, i.e. power usage condition)
and the processor sets a limit value for a power usage of each of the plurality of facilities based on a prediction result of the total power usage, (Para. 44 - - control points, i.e. limit values, are set for facilities/equipment by central control apparatus)
and controls each equipment device in each facility such that the set limit value is not exceeded and the total power usage of the plurality of facilities satisfies the…power usage condition. (Para. 44 - - control points, i.e. limit values, are set for facilities/equipment by central control apparatus; Para. 70 - - central control apparatus uses prediction of power usage; Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage, i.e. power usage condition)
But Lee does not explicitly teach a predetermined power usage condition,
However, Takeuchi teaches a predetermined power usage condition, (Para. 124, 126 - - predetermined power usage condition is used)
Lee and Takeuchi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain power management for a group/network of power facilities.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Lee, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Takeuchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to secure advantages of power consumers, fully utilize free capacity, and purchase inexpensive power, as suggested by Takeuchi (Para. 124, 126).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further teaches wherein the processor predicts the power usages of the facilities, based on, in addition to a power usage by each of the equipment devices installed in the facilities, an actual result of the power usages of the facilities over a past specific period. (Para. 73 - - power usage for past time section is used)
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches wherein when a prediction result of a power usage of at least one facility among the power usages of the facilities predicted by the processor is lower than a predetermined lower-limit threshold, the processor controls a load of a facility for which a prediction result of a power usage is predicted to be lower than the lower-limit threshold, such that the power usage of the facility is equal to or higher than a predetermined lower limit. (Para. 61 - - control set point is used to control equipment of the facilities, such that the equipment is operated according to the control point; Para. 70 - - this includes the predicted power usage such that if prediction is lower than set point, the prediction is used to control the equipment towards the set point, i.e. higher than the predetermined lower limit)
Regarding claim 13, Lee further teaches wherein when a prediction result of a power usage of at least one facility among the power usages of the facilities predicted by the processor is lower than a predetermined lower-limit threshold, the processor controls a load of a facility for which a prediction result of a power usage is predicted to be lower than the lower-limit threshold, such that the power usage of the facility is equal to or higher than a predetermined lower limit. (Para. 61 - - control set point is used to control equipment of the facilities, such that the equipment is operated according to the control point; Para. 70 - - this includes the predicted power usage such that if prediction is lower than set point, the prediction is used to control the equipment towards the set point, i.e. higher than the predetermined lower limit)
Regarding claim 16, Lee further teaches wherein when the total power usage of the plurality of facilities predicted by the processor is smaller than a predetermined threshold by a certain amount or more, the processor controls one or a plurality of the equipment devices installed in one or a plurality of the facilities such that a power usage is higher than a value predicted by the processor within a range in which the total power usage of the plurality of facilities does not exceed the threshold. (Para. 61 - - control set point is used to control equipment of the facilities, such that the equipment is operated according to the control point; Para. 70 - - this includes the predicted power usage such that if prediction is lower than set point, the prediction is used to control the equipment towards the set point, i.e. increase the power usage to counter the predicted low power usage in order to satisfy the control point set)
Regarding claim 17, Lee further teaches wherein when the total power usage of the plurality of facilities predicted by the processor is smaller than a predetermined threshold by a certain amount or more, the processor controls one or a plurality of the equipment devices installed in one or a plurality of the facilities such that a power usage is higher than a value predicted by the processor within a range in which the total power usage of the plurality of facilities does not exceed the threshold. (Para. 61 - - control set point is used to control equipment of the facilities, such that the equipment is operated according to the control point; Para. 70 - - this includes the predicted power usage such that if prediction is lower than set point, the prediction is used to control the equipment towards the set point, i.e. increase the power usage to counter the predicted low power usage in order to satisfy the control point set)
Regarding claim 18, Lee further teaches wherein the processor predicts a power usage of a facility based on a power usage of some equipment devices having a correlation with a power usage of an entire facility among the equipment devices installed in the facilities. (Para. 121 - - all devices or equipment which are operating in a variation pattern of status information corresponding to a specific equipment or facility are controlled; Para. 70 - - control is based on predicted power usage)
Regarding claim 19, Lee further teaches wherein the processor predicts a power usage of a facility based on a power usage of some equipment devices having a correlation with a power usage of an entire facility among the equipment devices installed in the facilities. (Para. 121 - - all devices or equipment which are operating in a variation pattern of status information corresponding to a specific equipment or facility are controlled; Para. 70 - - control is based on predicted power usage)
Regarding claim 22, Lee further teaches wherein the processor predicts a power usage of a facility based on a power usage of some equipment devices having a correlation with a power usage of an entire facility among the equipment devices installed in the facilities. (Para. 121 - - all devices or equipment which are operating in a variation pattern of status information corresponding to a specific equipment or facility are controlled; Para. 70 - - control is based on predicted power usage)
Regarding claim 23, Lee further teaches wherein the processor predicts a power usage of a facility based on a power usage of some equipment devices having a correlation with a power usage of an entire facility among the equipment devices installed in the facilities. (Para. 121 - - all devices or equipment which are operating in a variation pattern of status information corresponding to a specific equipment or facility are controlled; Para. 70 - - control is based on predicted power usage)
Regarding claim 26, Lee further teaches wherein the processor predicts a power usage of a facility based on a power usage of some equipment devices having a correlation with a power usage of an entire facility among the equipment devices installed in the facilities. (Para. 121 - - all devices or equipment which are operating in a variation pattern of status information corresponding to a specific equipment or facility are controlled; Para. 70 - - control is based on predicted power usage)
Regarding claim 27, Lee teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer (Para. 150 - - memory stores program to control; Fig. 3, Para. 61, 230 - - computer is used)
that controls a power control system for performing power control such that a total power usage of a plurality of facilities satisfies a…power usage condition, (Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage)
to function as: an acquisition unit that acquires information on power usages by equipment devices installed in the facilities; (Para. 48-51 - - equipment devices are monitored, i.e. power usage by equipment devices in the facilities is acquired)
a prediction unit that predicts power usages of the facilities in which the equipment devices are installed, (Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated)
based on the information on the power usages by the equipment devices; (Para. 73 - - power usage for past time section is used)
and a control unit that controls the total power usage of the plurality of facilities, based on the power usages of the facilities predicted by the prediction unit. (Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage, i.e. predetermined power usage condition)
wherein the prediction unit predicts the total power usage of the plurality of facilities, based on the power usages of the facilities predicted by the prediction unit, (Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage, i.e. power usage condition)
and the control unit sets a limit value for a power usage of each of the plurality of facilities based on a prediction result of the total power usage, (Para. 44 - - control points, i.e. limit values, are set for facilities/equipment by central control apparatus)
and controls each equipment device in each facility such that the set limit value is not exceeded and the total power usage of the plurality of facilities satisfies the…power usage condition. (Para. 44 - - control points, i.e. limit values, are set for facilities/equipment by central control apparatus; Para. 70 - - central control apparatus uses prediction of power usage; Para. 35 - - power usage of facilities is calculated to control the facilities; Para. 70 - - predicted usage is calculated; Para. 121 - - devices/equipment are controlled in order to optimize or efficiently manage, i.e. power usage condition)
But Lee does not explicitly teach a predetermined power usage condition,
However, Takeuchi teaches a predetermined power usage condition, (Para. 124, 126 - - predetermined power usage condition is used)
Lee and Takeuchi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain power management for a group/network of power facilities.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Lee, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Takeuchi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to secure advantages of power consumers, fully utilize free capacity, and purchase inexpensive power, as suggested by Takeuchi (Para. 124, 126).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0070089 by Fukubayashi et al., which discloses storage battery sharing system including determining a discharge amount for storage battery (Title/Abstract).
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119