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 . The objections and rejections from the Office Action of 11/12/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “units” in claims 1-10 and 13. No explicit corresponding structure appears to be disclosed in the instant Specification, but one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “units” as corresponding to general-purpose computer processing/communication hardware elements or software modules.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US 20140214218 A1)[hereinafter “Eldridge”] and Schweitzer III et al. (US 20090125158 A1)[hereinafter “Schweitzer”].
Regarding Claim 1, Eldridge discloses an energy management system [Fig. 1] comprising:
a. at least one submetering and communication module [Fig. 1 – second devices 8], said module comprising:
i. a submetering unit configured for metering appliance related power consumption parameters related to an electr(on)ic appliance [Paragraph [0036] – “Each of the second devices 8 are structured to exchange second electric power as at least part of the first electric power with a number of corresponding electric loads 12 and to meter second electric energy 14 corresponding to the second electric power.”Paragraph [0039] – “Each of the first device 6 and the second devices 8 includes a metering circuit (MC) 22 and 24, respectively.”See the loads 12 of Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0013] – “"special loads" (e.g., on-site solar and wind generation; distributed energy storage; intelligent appliances)”] and physically coupled to an electrical power line of the electr(on)ic appliance [Fig. 1, connection between second devices 8 and loads 12];
ii. a first communication interface for communicating said appliance related power consumption parameters with a server [Fig. 1, see the path from second device 8 to processor 16 of first device 6.Paragraph [0036] – “A processor (P) 16 includes a routine 18 structured to compare the metered first electric energy 10 from the first device 6 with a sum of the metered second electric energy 14 from each of the second devices 8, and to responsively determine 21 proper or improper operation of the electric power distribution system 2.”Processor 16 being a “server” because it can be seen to be arranged in client-server relationship with metering circuit 24. Also, Paragraph [0030] – “As employed herein, the term "processor" shall mean … a server”];
b. a first processing unit configured for processing said appliance related power consumption parameters and providing a sub-set of power consumption parameters [Paragraph [0036] – “Each of the second devices 8 are structured to exchange second electric power as at least part of the first electric power with a number of corresponding electric loads 12 and to meter second electric energy 14 corresponding to the second electric power.”The use of a “processing unit” in supplying each of the second electric energy values 14 is inherent. Each of the second electric energy values 14 being a “sub-set” of the total power supplied by first device 6.];
c. a main metering unit configured for metering main power consumption parameters [Paragraph [0039] – “Each of the first device 6 and the second devices 8 includes a metering circuit (MC) 22 and 24, respectively.”] related to a main electricity cable [Paragraph [0036] – “The first device 6 is structured to exchange the first electric power with a plurality of second devices 8 and to meter first electric energy 10 corresponding to the first electric power.”Paragraph [0037] – “The first device 6 can be any upstream power distribution device up to and including the generation source (e.g., electric power source 4) and the second devices 8 can be a plurality of any power distribution devices electrically connected downstream of the first device 6.”The main cable being the double-arrow line connected to the bottom of first device 6.] supplying electrical power to the electr(on)ic appliance [Fig. 1, loads 12], wherein the main metering unit is a certified or revenue-grade electricity meter suitable for use in electricity billing or settlement [Paragraph [0005] – “Meters are used by electric utilities to measure and bill for electricity usage.” There is no indication the scheme of Fig. 1, which is in communication with the electric utility 20, is unsuitable for electricity billing purposes.];
d. a second communication interface for communicating said main power consumption parameters with said server [Fig. 1, communication pathway between MC 22 and processor 16.Paragraph [0036] – “A processor (P) 16 includes a routine 18 structured to compare the metered first electric energy 10 from the first device 6 with a sum of the metered second electric energy 14 from each of the second devices 8, and to responsively determine 21 proper or improper operation of the electric power distribution system 2.”];
e. a second processing unit configured for processing said main power consumption parameters and providing a main set of power consumption parameters [The use of a “processing unit” in supplying each of the first electric energy values 10 from MC 22 to processor 16 is inherent.]; and
the energy management system further comprises a third processing unit configured for correlating said sub-set with said main set [Paragraph [0036] – “A processor (P) 16 includes a routine 18 structured to compare the metered first electric energy 10 from the first device 6 with a sum of the metered second electric energy 14 from each of the second devices 8, and to responsively determine 21 proper or improper operation of the electric power distribution system 2.”].
Eldridge discloses the use of time-stamping with regards to energy measurements from main and branch meters [See Paragraph [0079]] and validating the energy measurements based on the correlation [Paragraph [0036] – “A processor (P) 16 includes a routine 18 structured to compare the metered first electric energy 10 from the first device 6 with a sum of the metered second electric energy 14 from each of the second devices 8, and to responsively determine 21 proper or improper operation of the electric power distribution system 2.”], but fails to disclose performing the correlating by time-aligning the appliance related power consumption parameters and the main power consumption parameters based on synchronized measurement intervals and validating that a change in power consumption measured by the submetering unit is physically present in and consistent with a corresponding change measured by the certified or revenue-grade electricity meter.
However, Schweitzer discloses time-aligning sets of power consumption parameters to a common time standard [Paragraph [0108] – “STP 360 may receive measurement data 356. Measurement data 356 may comprise one or more phase current and/or phase voltage measurements obtained by one or more IEDs, PMUs and/or PMCUs (now shown) communicatively coupled to the SEPSN. As discussed above, the phase voltage and/or current measurements 356 (as well as the dynamic topology data 355) may comprise timestamp information to allow the STP 360 to time align the measurements to a common time standard.” See also Paragraph [0112]. The use of the common time standard reading on the limitation “based on synchronized measurement intervals.”]. It would have been obvious to take such an approach in correlating and validating the energy measurements in order to ensure that data that is actually corresponding to a particular time is subject to the analysis, which would have improved the analysis accuracy.
It would have been obvious to use only sub-sets of power consumption parameters that are validated against the certified or revenue-grade electricity meter by the energy management system to at least one of: (i) authorize execution of a grid-originated control instruction to the electr(on)ic appliance; (ii) determine remuneration, billing, or settlement associated with the electr(on)ic appliance [Per Paragraph [0005] of Eldridge – “Meters are used by electric utilities to measure and bill for electricity usage.”]; or (iii) qualify the submetering unit as providing revenue-grade or grid-verifiable power consumption parameters in order to ensure the accuracy of the process.
Eldridge, as modified, would disclose that sub-sets of power consumption parameters that are not so validated are flagged or excluded as non-verifiable [Paragraph [0038] – “The routine 18 is further structured to notify an electric utility 20 corresponding to the electric power source 4 responsive to the determined improper operation.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Eldridge discloses that the first processing unit configured for processing said appliance related power consumption parameters [The use of a “processing unit” in supplying each of the second electric energy values 14 is inherent.] is included in the submetering and communication module [Fig. 1 – second devices 8].
Regarding Claim 3, Eldridge fails to disclose that the first and second and third processing unit are configured as one unit on the server.
However, Eldridge discloses that the processing can be performed by a computer server [Paragraph [0030] – “As employed herein, the term "processor" shall mean … a server”] and the use of electric utility system control [Paragraph [0010] – “Variable time of use schedules and real time pricing are two applications where the utility can change how the meter is billing the customer based on the conditions of the utility grid. Some smart meters have integrated service disconnects that can be triggered remotely if the utility bill is not timely paid. These meters may also include communication into the premise to communicate with end devices. This allows a utility to perform demand response or load control and actively manage participating loads on the utility grid.”]. It would have been obvious to perform all data processing at an electric utility central server in order to reduce the cost of the electric monitoring hardware at client locations and to facilitate appropriate control across the grid.
Regarding Claim 4, Eldridge discloses that the server [Fig. 1 – processor 16] contains a database adapted for storing the sub-set and the main set and/or for storing the respective validation [Paragraph [0036] – “A processor (P) 16 includes a routine 18 structured to compare the metered first electric energy 10 from the first device 6 with a sum of the metered second electric energy 14 from each of the second devices 8, and to responsively determine 21 proper or improper operation of the electric power distribution system 2.”Corresponding memory is inherent to the operation of processor 16.].
Regarding Claim 6, Eldridge discloses that the main metering unit is a revenue grade meter [Paragraph [0037] – “The first device 6 can be any upstream power distribution device up to and including the generation source (e.g., electric power source 4)”Paragraph [0045] – “Electric metering with, preferably, up to utility grade accuracy (e.g., without limitation, .+-.0.2% in accordance with ANSI C-12.20 and IEC 687) can be provided.”].
Regarding Claim 7, Eldridge discloses providing instructions to modify said appliance’s energy usage and/or time period of energy usage as a function of predicted and/or real-time electric grid load [Paragraph [0010] – “Variable time of use schedules and real time pricing are two applications where the utility can change how the meter is billing the customer based on the conditions of the utility grid. Some smart meters have integrated service disconnects that can be triggered remotely if the utility bill is not timely paid. These meters may also include communication into the premise to communicate with end devices. This allows a utility to perform demand response or load control and actively manage participating loads on the utility grid.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Eldridge discloses a control unit adapted to communicate with said electric grid [Fig. 1, communication path between processor 16 and electric utility 20] and being able to receive instructions from said grid to instruct the electr(on)ic appliance [Paragraph [0010] – “Variable time of use schedules and real time pricing are two applications where the utility can change how the meter is billing the customer based on the conditions of the utility grid. Some smart meters have integrated service disconnects that can be triggered remotely if the utility bill is not timely paid. These meters may also include communication into the premise to communicate with end devices. This allows a utility to perform demand response or load control and actively manage participating loads on the utility grid.”].
Regarding Claim 9, Eldridge discloses that at least the first communication interface comprises a control unit able to communicate with said electric grid [Fig. 1, see the path from second device 8 to processor 16 of first device 6 which then facilitates communication with electric utility 20] and to receive instructions from the grid to instruct the electr(on)ic appliance [Paragraph [0010] – “Variable time of use schedules and real time pricing are two applications where the utility can change how the meter is billing the customer based on the conditions of the utility grid. Some smart meters have integrated service disconnects that can be triggered remotely if the utility bill is not timely paid. These meters may also include communication into the premise to communicate with end devices. This allows a utility to perform demand response or load control and actively manage participating loads on the utility grid.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Eldridge discloses a virtual power plant comprising an energy management system in accordance with claim 1 [Paragraph [0010] – “Variable time of use schedules and real time pricing are two applications where the utility can change how the meter is billing the customer based on the conditions of the utility grid. Some smart meters have integrated service disconnects that can be triggered remotely if the utility bill is not timely paid. These meters may also include communication into the premise to communicate with end devices. This allows a utility to perform demand response or load control and actively manage participating loads on the utility grid.”].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US 20140214218 A1)[hereinafter “Eldridge”], Schweitzer III et al. (US 20090125158 A1)[hereinafter “Schweitzer”], and Wensley (US 4008458 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Eldridge discloses that the third processing unit is adapted for correlating said sub-set with said main set and validating the presence of said sub-set in said main set [Paragraph [0036] – “A processor (P) 16 includes a routine 18 structured to compare the metered first electric energy 10 from the first device 6 with a sum of the metered second electric energy 14 from each of the second devices 8, and to responsively determine 21 proper or improper operation of the electric power distribution system 2.”], but fails to disclose that the third processing unit is adapted for requesting the respective sub-sets and main set.
However, Wensley discloses the use of such a power meter data gathering technique [Abstract – “Utility or industrial meters having rotating elements are monitored by an automatic reading unit through which digital input data is stored and read out in response to interrogation by a coded polling signal transmitted to the unit through telephone lines.”]. It would have been obvious to implement data gathering in such a manner in order to reduce computational burden in that data could be gathered on an “as-needed” only basis.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US 20140214218 A1)[hereinafter “Eldridge”], Schweitzer III et al. (US 20090125158 A1)[hereinafter “Schweitzer”], and Hwang et al. (US 20160117784 A1)[hereinafter Hwang”].
Regarding Claim 10, Eldridge fails to disclose that the submetering unit is configured for metering appliance related power consumption parameters related to the total power consumption of all electr(on)ic appliances present in an household and wherein the main metering unit is configured for metering main power consumption parameters related to a main electricity cable providing energy to a plurality of said households.
However, Hwang discloses such a power metering arrangement [Paragraph [0039] – “The power meter reading system 500 of a power company may receive electricity usage information of the entire aggregate building 600 for an electricity charging period such as monthly, yearly, etc from the smart meter 400 of a power company which is installed in the aggregate building 600 and which measures the electricity consumption consumed by the entire aggregate building 600”Paragraph [0040] – “The smart meter 200 for each household may measure the electricity usage which is consumed for each household (or each partitioned owner) of the aggregate building 600”]. It would have been obvious to extend the process of Eldridge to such a context (processor 16 of Eldridge gathers appliance specific energy consumption data) by monitoring the electric supply cables of households and any main feeder cables in order to identify any discrepancies in power consumption values across such a power distribution network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
118
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
371
861
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees and the rejections under 35 USC 101 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
332
865
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of second devices 8 of Eldridge corresponds to a single load 12 [see Fig. 1].
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
107
861
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
293
866
media_image5.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image6.png
268
863
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. New grounds for rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170146576 A1 – Consumption Breakdown Monitoring Through Power State Sensing
US 20130307694 A1 – ELECTRICITY/POWER METERING SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20140028463 A1 – METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTION OF SENSOR TAMPERING
US 20110307200 A1 – RECOGNIZING MULTIPLE APPLIANCE OPERATING STATES USING CIRCUIT-LEVEL ELECTRICAL INFORMATION
Chen et al., LocalSense: An Infrastructure-Mediated Sensing Method for Locating Appliance Usage Events in Homes, IEEE, 2013
US 20160370447 A1 – Apparatus And Method For Correcting Power Usage Measurements
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857