DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action per the Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement received on 24 November 2025. Claims 21-40 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-40 are pending in this application. Claims 1-20 have been examined on their merits.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species a) in the reply filed on 24 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 15-17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue “receiving first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times for one or more variable power generation assets, a variable power generation asset subject to ramp events, a ramp event being a large variation in power generated by the variable power generation asset within a short period of time” in lines 4-7. Suggested claim language: “receiving first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times for one or more variable power generation assets, wherein a variable power generation asset is subject to ramp events and a ramp event is a large variation in power generated by the variable power generation asset within a short period of time”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue “generating ramp predictors for the set of look-ahead times, a ramp predictor including a set of values, a value obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from one of the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement or by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a first power forecast for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times” in lines 12-16. Suggested claim language: “generating ramp predictors for the set of look-ahead times, wherein a ramp predictor includes a set of values and a value obtained is by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from one of the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement or by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a first power forecast for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 2 includes the grammatical issue “… wherein generating second power forecasts …” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… wherein the generating of the second power forecasts …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 5 includes the grammatical issue “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, the method further comprises:” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprising:”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 6 includes the grammatical issue “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, the method further comprising:” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the method further comprising:”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 7 includes the grammatical issue “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, the method further comprising:” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprising:”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 9 includes the grammatical issue “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, the method further comprising:” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprising:”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claims 15, 17, and 19 include the punctuation issue of “The method of claim 11, further comprising:” in line 1. Suggested claim language: of “The method of claim 11 further comprising:”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 16 includes the punctuation issue of “The method of claim 15, further comprising:” in line 1. Suggested claim language: of “The method of claim 15 further comprising:”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 20 includes the grammatical issue “receive first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times for one or more variable power generation assets, a variable power generation asset subject to ramp events, a ramp event being a large variation in power generated by the variable power generation asset within a short period of time” in lines 3-6. Suggested claim language: “receive first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times for one or more variable power generation assets, wherein a variable power generation asset is subject to ramp events and a ramp event is a large variation in power generated by the variable power generation asset within a short period of time”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 20 includes the grammatical issue “generate ramp predictors for the set of look-ahead times, a ramp predictor including a set of values, a value obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from one of the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement or by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a first power forecast for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times” in lines 11-15. Suggested claim language: “generate ramp predictors for the set of look-ahead times, wherein a ramp predictor includes a set of values and a value obtained is by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from one of the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement or by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a first power forecast for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the recites “(a) non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions …”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “generating ramp predictors for the set of look-ahead times, a ramp predictor including a set of values, a value obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from one of the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement or by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a first power forecast for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times” and “generating second power forecasts for the set of look-ahead times for the one or more variable power generation assets based on the first power forecasts and the predicted forecast errors”.
The limitation of “generating ramp predictors for the set of look-ahead times, a ramp predictor including a set of values, a value obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from one of the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement or by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a first power forecast for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0015]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “generating second power forecasts for the set of look-ahead times for the one or more variable power generation assets based on the first power forecasts and the predicted forecast errors” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0016]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “applying sets of decision trees to the ramp predictors and the power forecast errors to obtain predicted forecast errors” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 6, par. [0058]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “…the executable instructions being executable by one or more processors”; “receiving first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times for one or more variable power generation assets, a variable power generation asset subject to ramp events, a ramp event being a large variation in power generated by the variable power generation asset within a short period of time”; “receiving generated power measurements for the one or more variable power generation assets, the generated power measurements including a reference generated power measurement and one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement”; and “receiving power forecast errors for the one or more variable power generation assets”.
The limitation of “…the executable instructions being executable by one or more processors” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “receiving first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times for one or more variable power generation assets, a variable power generation asset subject to ramp events, a ramp event being a large variation in power generated by the variable power generation asset within a short period of time”; “receiving generated power measurements for the one or more variable power generation assets, the generated power measurements including a reference generated power measurement and one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement”; and “receiving power forecast errors for the one or more variable power generation assets” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “…the executable instructions being executable by one or more processors” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “receiving first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times for one or more variable power generation assets, a variable power generation asset subject to ramp events, a ramp event being a large variation in power generated by the variable power generation asset within a short period of time”; “receiving generated power measurements for the one or more variable power generation assets, the generated power measurements including a reference generated power measurement and one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement”; and “receiving power forecast errors for the one or more variable power generation assets”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data recited at a high level of generality to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “generating second power forecasts for the set of look-ahead times for the one or more variable power generation assets based on the first power forecasts and the predicted forecast errors includes adding the first power forecasts and the predicted forecast errors to obtain the second power forecasts”.
The limitation of “generating second power forecasts for the set of look-ahead times for the one or more variable power generation assets based on the first power forecasts and the predicted forecast errors includes adding the first power forecasts and the predicted forecast errors to obtain the second power forecasts” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0016]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “a set of values for a ramp predictor for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times that is prior to or at a threshold look-ahead time includes values obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement and values obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a subset of the first power forecasts for a subset of the set of look-ahead times”.
The limitation of “a set of values for a ramp predictor for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times that is prior to or at a threshold look-ahead time includes values obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from the one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement and values obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a subset of the first power forecasts for a subset of the set of look-ahead times” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0017]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “a set of values for a ramp predictor for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times that is after a threshold look-ahead time includes values obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a subset of the first power forecasts for a subset of the set of look-ahead times”.
The limitation of “a set of values for a ramp predictor for a look-ahead time of the set of look-ahead times that is after a threshold look-ahead time includes values obtained by subtracting the reference generated power measurement from a subset of the first power forecasts for a subset of the set of look-ahead times” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0018]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “applying a machine learning forecast model to the generated power measurements and the weather forecast data to obtain a first subset of the first power forecasts for a first subset of the set of look-ahead times that are prior to or at a threshold look-ahead time”.
The limitation of “applying a machine learning forecast model to the generated power measurements and the weather forecast data to obtain a first subset of the first power forecasts for a first subset of the set of look-ahead times that are prior to or at a threshold look-ahead time” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0029] and pg. 8, par. [0082]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “receiving weather forecast data for a geographic area that includes the one or more variable power generation assets”.
The limitation of “receiving weather forecast data for a geographic area that includes the one or more variable power generation assets” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “receiving weather forecast data for a geographic area that includes the one or more variable power generation assets”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data recited at a high level of generality to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “applying the machine learning forecast model to the weather forecast data to obtain a second subset of the first power forecasts for a second subset of the set of look-ahead times that are after a threshold look-ahead time”.
The limitation of “applying the machine learning forecast model to the weather forecast data to obtain a second subset of the first power forecasts for a second subset of the set of look-ahead times that are after a threshold look-ahead time” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030] and pg. 8, par. [0082]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “applying at a first time a machine learning forecast model to the generated power measurements and the weather forecast data to obtain the first power forecasts for the set of look-ahead times, wherein the reference generated power measurement is a power measurement for the one or more variable power generation assets measured at a time generally at or just prior to the first time”.
The limitation of “applying at a first time a machine learning forecast model to the generated power measurements and the weather forecast data to obtain the first power forecasts for the set of look-ahead times, wherein the reference generated power measurement is a power measurement for the one or more variable power generation assets measured at a time generally at or just prior to the first time” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0040]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “receiving weather forecast data for a geographic area that includes the one or more variable power generation assets”.
The limitation of “receiving weather forecast data for a geographic area that includes the one or more variable power generation assets” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “receiving weather forecast data for a geographic area that includes the one or more variable power generation assets”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data recited at a high level of generality to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
The limitation of claim 8 further details “the set of values for the ramp predictor” of claim 1; and herein stands rejected under the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 9:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “generating a ramp predictor data set based on the power forecast data set”; and “generating a forecast error data set based on the power forecast data set”.
The limitation of “generating a ramp predictor data set based on the power forecast data set” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 10, par. [0100]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “generating a forecast error data set based on the power forecast data set” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0297093 A1 (instant application): pg. 8, par. [0085] and pg. 10, par. [0099]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “receiving a power forecast data set; generating a ramp predictor data set based on the power forecast data set” and “training the sets of decision trees on the power forecast data set, the ramp predictor data set, and the forecast error data set”.
The limitations of “receiving a power forecast data set; and “training the sets of decision trees on the power forecast data set, the ramp predictor data set, and the forecast error data set” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving” and “training” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “receiving a power forecast data set and “training the sets of decision trees on the power forecast data set, the ramp predictor data set, and the forecast error data set”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data recited at a high level of generality to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
The limitation of claim 10 further details “the second power forecasts” of claim 1; and herein stands rejected under the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 2 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 5 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 6 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 7 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 8 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 9 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 represents an equivalent system claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Additionally, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… at least one … memory ”.
The limitation of “… at least one … memory ” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… at least one … memory ” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to renewable energy generation and energy forecasting systems/method.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0337495 A1 discloses a system and method comprising of producing power from a wind farm that incorporates tunable power production forecasts for optimal wind farm performance, where the wind farm power production is controlled at least in part by the power production forecasts.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0028360 A1 discloses a method of operating an electrical grid having at least one electrical consumer and a plurality of electrical producers are disclosed. In the method, a consumption prediction for the electrical consumer is provided, and production predictions for each electrical producer of a plurality of electrical producers.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0103959 A1 discloses a method and system for solar power forecasting.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0299580 A1 discloses forecasting power generated by the variable power generation assets using ramp predictors.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0315940 A1 discloses monitoring and/or operating a power system asset.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0343413 A1 discloses a generated-power prediction method for solar power generation, a generated-power prediction device, and a solar power generation system.
U.S. Patent No. 11,416,786 B2 discloses operations of a computer system that is located within a power grid and that is associated with its own power sources. Past operational characteristics of the power grid are analyzed to derive learned characteristics for the power grid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117