DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 08/05/2026.
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 06/23/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “suitable for” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable for” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “suitable for” term is simply points to an intended use.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the phases" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a target model" in line 38. It is unclear whether “a target model” is referring to previously limitation of “the target model”. If so, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites an “optimizing” step. However, it is unclear what “optimized. The whole step seems indefinite and vague what is optimized.
Claim 9 recites “g. not taking any action”. This limitation is unclear what does it mean by “not taking any action”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method.
Claim 11 is directed to a product.
Therefore, claims 1-10 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method for controlling at least one electrical microgrid (10), each electrical microgrid (10) comprising at least one electrical energy consumption element (14), at least one electrical energy production element (16, 18) and at least one electrical energy storage element (19), each microgrid (10) being suitable for assuming a plurality of energy states (St), each energy state (So being defined by a quantity of electrical energy to be exchanged (PNe) between elements of the microgrid (10) and by a quantity of stored electrical energy (EBcap) on the at least one electrical energy storage element (19), each microgrid (10) being apt to switch from one state (S{) to another by the implementation of an action (At) on the microgrid (10) among a set (EA) of predefined actions, the method comprising the phases of:
a. supplying of a model, called source model (Ms)- trained on a source domain (Ds) for learning a source set of tasks (Ts), so that the source model (Ms) is suitable for determining an action (A), among the set (EA) of predefined actions for controlling a given microgrid, called source microgrid (1OS), depending on the state (So of the source microgrid (1OS), the source microgrid (10S) being suitable for operating in a given environment, called source environment (Es), delimiting the source domain (Ds), the source microgrid (10S) being suitable for operating according to a given operating mode, called source operating mode (Fs), delimiting the source set of tasks (Ts), the source model (Ms) comprising parameters (w) the values of which are optimized for the source domain (Ds) and the task source assembly (Ts) [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (see for example Fig. 6)],
b. supplying of a model, called target model (Mc)- suitable for training on a target domain(Do) for learning a target set of tasks (Tc), so that the target model (MC) is suitable for determining an action (At), among the set (EA) of predefined actions, for controlling a given microgrid called target microgrid (10C), depending on the state (St)of the target microgrid (10C), the target microgrid (10C) being suitable for operating in a given environment called target environment (Ec), delimiting the target domain (Dc), the target microgrid (10C) being suitable for operating according to a given operating mode called target operating mode (Fe), delimiting the target set of tasks (To), the target environment (E) and the target operating mode (Fg) being such that the target domain (Do) is different from the source domain (Ds) and/or the target set of tasks (Ta) is different from the source set of tasks (Ts), the target model (MG) comprising parameters (w) [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (see for example Fig. 6)],
c. extracting parameter values (w) from the source model (Ms), the extraction phase being implemented by computer [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (see for example Fig. 6)],
d. initializing parameters (w) of the target model (M) with the parameter values (w) extracted from the source model (Ms), for obtaining an initialized target model(Mg), the initialization phase being implemented by computer [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (see for example Fig. 6)], and
e. optimizing, according to the target domain (Dg) and the target set of tasks (-T), of the parameters (w) of the target model (Mg) initialized for obtaining a target model(Mg) trained for the control of the target microgrid (1OC), the optimization phase being implemented by computer [mathematical concepts (see for example Fig. 6)].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “computer”. The additional element of “computer” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “computer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions such as neural network].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per Claim 10, claim 10 recites limitations analogous in scope to claim 1, and as such are similar rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Mbuwir et al (B. V. Mbuwir, F. Rurlens, F. Spiessens, G. Deconinck, “Battery Energy Management in a Microgrid Using Batch Reinforcement Learning”, pgs. 1=19, 2017) discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
525
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
304
930
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
393
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “a. supplying of a model, called source model (Ms)- trained on a source domain (Ds) for learning a source set of tasks (Ts), so that the source model (Ms) is suitable for determining an action (A), among the set (EA) of predefined actions for controlling a given microgrid, called source microgrid (1OS), depending on the state (So of the source microgrid (1OS), the source microgrid (10S) being suitable for operating in a given environment, called source environment (Es), delimiting the source domain (Ds), the source microgrid (10S) being suitable for operating according to a given operating mode, called source operating mode (Fs), delimiting the source set of tasks (Ts), the source model (Ms) comprising parameters (w) the values of which are optimized for the source domain (Ds) and the task source assembly (Ts),
b. supplying of a model, called target model (Mc)- suitable for training on a target domain(Do) for learning a target set of tasks (Tc), so that the target model (MC) is suitable for determining an action (At), among the set (EA) of predefined actions, for controlling a given microgrid called target microgrid (10C), depending on the state (St)of the target microgrid (10C), the target microgrid (10C) being suitable for operating in a given environment called target environment (Ec), delimiting the target domain (Dc), the target microgrid (10C) being suitable for operating according to a given operating mode called target operating mode (Fe), delimiting the target set of tasks (To), the target environment (E) and the target operating mode (Fg) being such that the target domain (Do) is different from the source domain (Ds) and/or the target set of tasks (Ta) is different from the source set of tasks (Ts), the target model (MG) comprising parameters (w),
c. extracting parameter values (w) from the source model (Ms), the extraction phase being implemented by computer,
d. initializing parameters (w) of the target model (M) with the parameter values (w) extracted from the source model (Ms), for obtaining an initialized target model(Mg), the initialization phase being implemented by computer, and
e. optimizing, according to the target domain (Dg) and the target set of tasks (-T), of the parameters (w) of the target model (Mg) initialized for obtaining a target model(Mg) trained for the control of the target microgrid (1OC), the optimization phase being implemented by computer” in combination with the remaining steps recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights