DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 1 July 2026. Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 21-40 were previously withdrawn.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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 16-19, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to objected claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 15-17, 19, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 1 July 2026. The objections of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 15-17, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 20-24, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
Applicant respectfully submits that claim does not recite a mathematical concept as considered by the Guidance. Rather, the claims are directed to generating ramp predictors for power generation assets using power measurements and forecasts. The recited subtraction merely defines a physical change in generated electrical power and does not constitute the type of mathematical concept considered by the Guidance. (see Remarks, pg. 20, paragraph 8 – pg. 21, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, recites:
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 (lines 13-16)
The claim recites the limitation of “subtraction” which is a mathematical calculation of taking away one value from another value. In the instant application, the mathematical calculation is used to generate a value of a ramp predictor. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments,
Applicant respectfully submits that the limitation of claim 1 does not recite mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation by which the second power forecasts are generated. Rather, the limitation recites a technological forecasting operation involving information associated with power generation assets. To the extent particular mathematical techniques may be disclosed in the specification, such techniques are not recited in the claims and cannot be imported into the eligibility analysis. Accordingly, the claims do not recite a mathematical concept within the Guidance.
Moreover, the limitation "applying sets of decision trees to the ramp predictors and the power forecast errors to obtain predicted forecast errors," of claim 1 is "a process performed by use of mathematical calculation(s).' Id.
Applicant respectfully submits that the limitation "sets of decision trees" of claim 1 does not recite mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation by which forecast errors are obtained. Rather the decision trees are data structures or rule-based models applied to information associated with operation of variable power generation assets. Accordingly, the claims do not recite a mathematical concept within the Guidance. (see Remarks, pg. 21, paragraph 3-5)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): Abstract Idea Groupings:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010).
The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199. In the past, the Supreme Court sometimes described mathematical concepts as laws of nature, and at other times described these concepts as judicial exceptions without specifying a particular type of exception. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 65, 175 USPQ2d at 674; Flook, 437 U.S. at 589, 198 USPQ2d at 197; Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94, 40 USPQ 199, 202 (1939) (‘‘[A] scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention[.]’’). More recent opinions of the Supreme Court, however, have affirmatively characterized mathematical relationships and formulas as abstract ideas. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (describing Flook as holding "that a mathematical formula for computing ‘alarm limits’ in a catalytic conversion process was also a patent-ineligible abstract idea."); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (noting that the claimed "concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea,").
When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), Examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. See, e.g., Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame’."). For example, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).
A. Mathematical Relationships
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.
Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include:
i. a relationship between reaction rate and temperature, which relationship can be expressed in the form of a formula called the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981);
ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674;
iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words); and
iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).
Examples of mathematical equations or formulas recited in a claim include:
i. a formula describing certain electromagnetic standing wave phenomena, Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (50.9(l/lambda<-0.513>);
ii. the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. 175, 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981) (ln v = CZ + x);
iii. a formula for computing an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978) (B1=B0 (1.0–F) + PVL(F)); and
iv. a mathematical formula for hedging (claim 4), Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010) (Fixed Bill Price = Fi + [(Ci + Ti + LDi) x (α + βE(Wi))]).
C. Mathematical Calculations
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Examples of mathematical calculations recited in a claim include:
i. performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
ii. calculating a number representing an alarm limit value using the mathematical formula ‘‘B1=B0 (1.0–F) + PVL(F)’’, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978);
iii. using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers, Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential);
iv. managing a stable value protected life insurance policy via performing calculations, Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979); and
vi. calculating the difference between local and average data values, In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 903, 214 USPQ 682, 683-84 (CCPA 1982).
In summary, “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) Hence, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
Applicant's technology provides technical solutions to improve forecast accuracy of power generation forecast systems by generating ramp predictors and enhance market efficiency and improve operational reliability. Features in claim 1 are directed towards these technical solutions. These features include "generating ramp predictors for the set of look-ahead times, wherein a ramp predictor includes a set of values and 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," "applying sets of decision trees to the ramp predictors and the power forecast errors to obtain predicted forecast errors," 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." One practical application of these features generates a second or improved power forecast may be determined for power generation assets which utilize ramp predictors. This allows power generation forecasts systems to improve forecast accuracy by utilizing ramp predictors.
Moreover, the claimed combination constitutes a specific improvement to power forecasting technology, not merely an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer. As disclosed in paragraph [0103] of the specification demonstrates that the claimed approach provides measurable technical improvements. As described in the specification, "power forecasts generated using ramp predictors have lower nMAE than power forecasts generated without using ramp predictors." Similarly, claim 10 recites that "the second power forecasts have an average normalized mean-absolute error (nMAE) for the set of look-ahead times that is lower than an average nMAE for the set of look-ahead times that the first power forecasts have." This improvement in forecast accuracy is a concrete technical benefit that results from the specific claimed combination of elements. (see Remarks, pg. 22, paragraph 4 – pg. 23, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has set forth advantages of use (i.e. a benefit of “… improve forecast accuracy of power generation forecast systems by generating ramp predictors and enhance market efficiency and improve operational reliability.”, “… improve forecast accuracy by utilizing ramp predictors.”, and “… a concrete technical benefit that results from the specific claimed combination of elements.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a); i.e. The applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to generating power forecasts). Hence, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
The processors in the claims are not merely performing generic computer functions such as storing or retrieving data, but rather are executing a specific technical process that generates ramp predictors based on generated power measurements and first power forecasts, applies trained decision trees to the ramp predictors and power forecast errors, and produces improved power forecasts with lower forecast errors. The claims recite a specific technical implementation that goes beyond merely applying an abstract idea "on a computer." (see Remarks, pg. 23, paragraph 5)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claimed limitation of “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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the claims are not directed to an improvement in functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field but an improvement to an abstract idea. In particular, the examiner maintains the claims are directed to using generic one or more processors as a tool in a generation of data (i.e. power forecasts). Hence, the additional element(s) of “one or more processors” does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception; and the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
These receiving steps are not insignificant extra-solution activity because they are integral to the claimed technical solution. The specific data received-first power forecasts for a set of look-ahead times, generated power measurements including a reference generated power measurement and one or more generated power measurements prior to the reference generated power measurement, and power forecast errors-is necessary input for generating the ramp predictors and applying the decision trees to obtain predicted forecast errors. The receiving steps are not nominal pre-solution activities that could be performed separately from the technical process, but rather are intertwined with and necessary for the core technical steps of generating ramp predictors and predicting forecast errors. Moreover, the data received is specific technical data tied to the particular problem of forecasting power for variable power generation assets subject to ramp events, not generic data that could be used for any purpose. Accordingly, these additional features are neither well-known, routine, nor conventional in the art, and are outside the scope of the alleged abstract idea. (see Remarks, pg. 23, paragraph 6 – pg. 24, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner maintains the limitations of “receiving” are directed to mere data gathering for use in the abstract ideas of “generating ramp predictors and predicting forecasts” (see preceding argument). Further, the applicant has not set forth any arguments/evidence/rationales as to why the steps of “receiving” are not recited at a high level of generality wherein they represent more than mere data gathering which is not well-understood, routine and conventional, in light of the courts finding limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, are well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”). Hence, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5 March 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 113991638) listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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, wherein a ramp predictor includes a set of values and 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, wherein a ramp predictor includes a set of values and 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, wherein a variable power generation asset of the one or more variable power generation assets is subject to ramp events and 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, wherein a variable power generation asset of the one or more variable power generation assets is subject to ramp events and 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, wherein a variable power generation asset of the one or more variable power generation assets is subject to ramp events and 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 “the generating of the 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 “the generating of the 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 “the set of values for the 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 “the set of values for the 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 “the set of values for the 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 “the set of values for the 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. 2023/0214703 A1 discloses predicting energy production for energy generating assets.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0150031 A1 discloses a method including obtaining irradiance data at a first time and a second time from a plurality of sensors, determining whether one or more solar modules of a plurality of networked power plants will be covered by a shadow or shade at a third time based on the irradiance data, and generating, based at least in part on the determination, a power output prediction for each power plant of the plurality of networked power plants at the third time.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0087200 A1 discloses a method and a predictive energy platform for generating a predictive digital twin for at least one power grid.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0100604 A1 discloses systems and methods for managing electrical power distribution using artificial intelligence models deployed on edge computing devices positioned within power distribution environments.
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 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
Prosecution Insights