DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 09/07/2023.
Claim(s) 1-16 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 9-16 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1-8 have been canceled prior to examination for first office action.
- Claim(s) 9-16 have been indicated to have allowable subject matter over prior arts.
- Claim(s) 9-16 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed in the following dates has/have been considered by examiner:
05/31/2024
10/04/2023
09/07/2023
Reference(s) mentioned in the IDS has/have been utilized by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) from application no DE102021105460.5 filed 03/08/2021. The certified copy has been filed in instant application no 18/280,791 on 09/07/2023.
Specification
The disclosure filed 09/07/2023 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 09/07/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by examiner for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9, and 11 is/are objected to due to having minor informalities:
Claim 9 in L8-12 recites: “… (c) during the forecast period forecasting, by the first instance, an aggregated load curve band for a remaining duration of the forecast period, in due consideration of load curves actually implemented for the energy stores aggregated during the forecast period up to that point, and executing, by the first instance, reporting of the load curve band to the second instance; …”, which should be changed to “… (c) during the forecast time period, forecasting, by the first instance, an aggregated load curve band for a remaining duration of the forecast time period, based on the load curves implemented for the energy stores aggregated during the forecast time period up to that point, and executing, by the first instance, reporting of the load curve band to the second instance; …”, which would help avoid potential lack of antecedent basis related issue(s).
In addition, for claim 9, in L18, … “based on the associated individual load curves.” should be changed to “based on corresponding individual load curves” to improve antecedent support.
Similarly, for claim 11, in L2, “… the forecast period in progress.” should be changed to “… the forecast time period in progress.”
Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)
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 in Claim(s) 9 – … (a) forecasting, by a first instance, which controls …, … and reporting, by the first instance, the forecast aggregated load curve … (b) … trading, by the second instance … (c) … forecasting, by the first instance … and executing, by the first instance, reporting … (d) determining, by the second instance, an optimized aggregated load curve …, and requesting, by the second instance, the optimized aggregated curve …; and (e) disaggregating, by the first instance, the optimized aggregated load curve …, and controlling, by the first instance, the energy stores ….
Claim(s) 12 – … in step (a), the first instance forecasts … and notifies …, and in step (b), … the second instance determines …, trades …, and reports ….
Claim(s) 13 – … in step (e), the first instance disaggregates ….
Claim(s) 16 – … the first instance which is configured to execute steps (a), (c) and (e) ….
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.
For the term “first instance”, description has been provided in applicant specification, 0044 – “… a first instance INST1 which, in this case, for example, corresponds to the manufacturer of electric vehicles El to En. The first instance INST1 is configured, e.g. on the basis of previous user behavior and other marginal conditions, to forecast an aggregated, or consolidated, or "pooled" load curve for these electric vehicles E1 to En.”.
For the term “second instance”, description has been provided in applicant specification, 0045 – “… an aggregator instance INST2-1, which is configured to trade quantities of electrical energy on an energy market EM, for example a spot market, particularly by way of the purchase and sale of quantities of energy at specific times. According to a further development, purchases and sales can be actuated only with effect from a specified minimum quantity. In particular, the aggregator instance INST2-1 corresponds to an energy broker or trader.”.
But no further examples or specific definitions have been found based on a review of the specification and drawings for the abovementioned terms that describe any specific structure(s) for the terms. See below in “35 U.S.C. 112” sections(s) for the details of examiner’s interpretations of the abovementioned claim limitations in light of applicant’s specification.
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 9 – … (a) forecasting, by a first instance, which controls …, … and reporting, by the first instance, the forecast aggregated load curve … (b) … trading, by the second instance … (c) … forecasting, by the first instance … and executing, by the first instance, reporting … (d) determining, by the second instance, an optimized aggregated load curve …, and requesting, by the second instance, the optimized aggregated curve …; and (e) disaggregating, by the first instance, the optimized aggregated load curve …, and controlling, by the first instance, the energy stores ….
Claim(s) 12 – … in step (a), the first instance forecasts … and notifies …, and in step (b), … the second instance determines …, trades …, and reports ….
Claim(s) 13 – … in step (e), the first instance disaggregates ….
Claim(s) 16 – … the first instance which is configured to execute steps (a), (c) and (e) ….
Regarding claim 9:
Based on examiner’s review of applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that the corresponding structure(s) for the claimed subject matter (first/second instance(s)) in the abovementioned claims is/are not properly described in the application as filed, because the specification-provided examples (such as manufacturers of electric vehicles for the first instance, and a spot market/energy trader/broker for the second instance, etc.) fail to impart any structure(s) to the first and second instance(s). For example, the specification does not make it clear if these examples (i.e., manufacturers, brokers, etc.) are referring to any specific computer that is performing the functionalities or, if they are referring to a computer software that is enabling the organization/person to execute the functions. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what structure(s) enable the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
The abovementioned features, based on the way they are written, consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Therefore, claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Note, while claim(s) 10-11, and 14-15 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency.
If applicant believes there is sufficient written description in the disclosure, applicant is advised to point to the portion of the disclosure that describes the structure(s) that perform the abovementioned claimed functionalities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 9-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 9 – … (a) forecasting, by a first instance, which controls …, … and reporting, by the first instance, the forecast aggregated load curve … (b) … trading, by the second instance … (c) … forecasting, by the first instance … and executing, by the first instance, reporting … (d) determining, by the second instance, an optimized aggregated load curve …, and requesting, by the second instance, the optimized aggregated curve …; and (e) disaggregating, by the first instance, the optimized aggregated load curve …, and controlling, by the first instance, the energy stores ….
Claim(s) 12 – … in step (a), the first instance forecasts … and notifies …, and in step (b), … the second instance determines …, trades …, and reports ….
Claim(s) 13 – … in step (e), the first instance disaggregates ….
Claim(s) 16 – … the first instance which is configured to execute steps (a), (c) and (e) ….
Regarding claim 9:
Based on examiner’s review of applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that the corresponding structure(s) for the claimed subject matter (first/second instance(s)) in the abovementioned claims is/are not properly described in the application as filed, because the specification-provided examples (such as manufacturers of electric vehicles for the first instance, and a spot market/energy trader/broker for the second instance, etc.) fail to impart any structure(s) to the first and second instance(s). For example, the specification does not make it clear if these examples (i.e., manufacturers, brokers, etc.) are referring to any specific computer that is performing the functionalities or, if they are referring to a computer software that is enabling the organization/person to execute the functions. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what structure(s) enable the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
Therefore, claim(s) 9-16 is/are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of compact prosecution to apply prior art, examiner would interpret the first and second instances to be computer(s) that is/are able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Note, while claim(s) 10-11, and 14-15 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency and so this/these inherit(s) the above interpretations as well.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites a method (process), which is a statutory category of invention.
However, claim 1 recites, “(a) forecasting, by a first instance, which controls …, … (b) … trading, by the second instance … (c) … forecasting, by the first instance … (d) determining, by the second instance, an optimized aggregated load curve …, …; and (e) disaggregating, by the first instance, the optimized aggregated load curve …, …”. This/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of disaggregating, for example, as described in applicant specification, 0059, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, etc. appear to be an observation/evaluation/calculation that can be performed in the human mind (and/or written with a pen on a paper), under broadest reasonable interpretation and similar analysis is applicable to forecasting and determining limitations. These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind. Also note, all of these steps, can be written down with a pen on a paper. Note, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer devices to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract ideas, claim recites additional element(s) such as “by the first instance”, “by the second instance”, “… and reporting, by the first instance, the forecast aggregated load curve …; … and executing, by the first instance, reporting …; … and requesting, by the second instance, the optimized aggregated curve …;” – note these are recited in a high level of generality. These are thus merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as 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) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim additionally recites, “and controlling, by the first instance, the energy stores based on the associated individual load curves.”, which is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the same reasons as stated above. For example, for the claimed “by the first instance”, “by the second instance”, “… and reporting, by the first instance, the forecast aggregated load curve …; … and executing, by the first instance, reporting …; … and requesting, by the second instance, the optimized aggregated curve …;” – note these are recited in a high level of generality. These are thus merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as 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) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim additionally recites, “and controlling, by the first instance, the energy stores based on the associated individual load curves.”, which is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depend from claim 9, thus it includes the abstract idea of claim 9. Further, the claim additionally recites, “wherein the group of electrical energy stores comprises a fleet of electric vehicles, a number of which are configured for bidirectional current conduction.”, which is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 11-14 depend from claim 9, thus each includes the abstract idea of claim 9 (note, claim 13 also depend from claim 10, thus it includes the abstract idea of claim 10). Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the abstract idea where this/these limitation(s) just describe(s) the forecasting/determining/disaggregating step(s) further where a human mind is capable of repeatedly executing the mental steps of c to e (repetition (claim 11)), forecast, determine, and trade further information (claim 12 – note, it also recites “notifies”/“reports” which are similar to claim 9’s analysis of MPEP 2106.05(f), merely invoking computer components as a tool for ordinary tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)), mere description of the conditional disaggregation (claim 13), expansion of mental step, i.e., a conditional determination prior to the requesting step (claim 14), and thus no other meaningful or significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 depend from claim 9, thus it includes the abstract idea of claim 9. Further, the claim additionally recites, “wherein the second instance comprises at least one of an aggregator instance or an energy supplier.”, which is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depend from claim 9, thus it includes the abstract idea of claim 9. Further, the claim additionally recites, “An energy control system comprising the first instance which is configured to execute steps (a), (c) and (e) of the method according to claim 9.”, thus it recites a system (apparatus) executing these steps of the process. The energy control system, without any further description or details provided within claim and specification, is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to comprise the first instance that executes these steps as claimed. Similar to claim 9, first instance is recited at a high level of generality, merely invoking computer components as a tool and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claim(s) 9-16 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-16 would be allowable if re-written to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a) and 112(b) rejection(s) along with other formalities set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 9-16:
Regarding claim 9, closest prior arts identified are Gaul (US 20120146583 A1 – Also mentioned in IDS), Anthony Papavasiliou (Large-Scale Integration of Deferrable Demand and Renewable Energy Sources. Article. Online. 2013.) hereinafter Anthony, Haghighat-Kashani (US 20140336960 A1), and Forbes (US 20170358041 A1):
Gaul teaches a method and device for controlling charging stations for electrical vehicles. In order to minimise peak power demands in at least two charging stations combined into a group, actual charging parameters are exchanged within the charging stations within the group, a load prediction for the group is created depending on at least the actual charging parameters, and setpoint charging parameters for the charging stations of the group are determined depending on the load prognosis (such as in abstract, Fig. 1-2 & 0045-48, etc.).
Anthony teaches a stochastic unit commitment model for assessing the impacts of the large-scale integration of renewable energy sources and deferrable demand in power systems in terms of reserve requirements. In doing so, a dynamic programming algorithm for coordinating deferrable demand with renewable supply is presented along with simulation results for a model of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (such as in abstract, sections II-IV in pages 491-495, etc.).
Haghighat-Kashani teaches a method for modeling power usage within a macrogrid uses data relating to the behavioral patterns and states ("BA") of the users, data relating to external impacts on power usage and disaggregated power consumption data in at least one premises within the macrogrid (forming "power usage model data") and thereafter a method of forecasting and predicting future power requirements within the macrogrid uses such power usage model data. More specifically, it teaches the usage of Factorial Hidden Markov Model (FHMM) to model processes in which some variables are hidden, but are assumed to be statistically related to observed variables (such as in abstract, Fig. 10, [0086], [0100], [0122], etc.).
Forbes teaches systems and methods for financial settlement of transactions within an electric power grid network. A multiplicity of active grid elements are constructed and configured for electric connection and network-based communication over a blockchain-based platform. The multiplicity of active grid elements are operable to make peer-to-peer transactions based on their participation within the electric power grid by generating and executing a digital contract. (such as in abstract, [0134], [0250], [0259], [0270], etc.).
However, none of the above arts, alone or in combination, explicitly disclose or suggest the current combination of limitations, especially the following feature(s), emphasis added:
A method for assigning electrical energy to a group of electrical energy stores, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) forecasting, by a first instance, which controls individual load curves of the group of electrical energy stores, an aggregated load curve for the energy stores, and reporting, by the first instance, the forecast aggregated load curve to a second instance;
(b) for a forecast time period, trading, by the second instance, a quantity of energy corresponding to the forecast aggregated load curve;
(c) during the forecast period forecasting, by the first instance, an aggregated load curve band for a remaining duration of the forecast period, in due consideration of load curves actually implemented for the energy stores aggregated during the forecast period up to that point, and executing, by the first instance, reporting of the load curve band to the second instance;
(d) determining, by the second instance, an optimized aggregated load curve from the reported aggregated load curve band, and requesting, by the second instance, the optimized aggregated curve from the first instance;
and (e) disaggregating, by the first instance, the optimized aggregated load curve into individual load curves for the energy stores controlled by the first instance, and controlling, by the first instance, the energy stores based on the associated individual load curves.
Accordingly, regarding claim 9, the identified prior arts alone or in combination do not describe all the limitations.
Dependent claims 10-16 depend from independent claim 9 and are allowable for the same reasons as described above.
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ryu et al. (US 20150291036 A1) is related to a device and method for controlling an electric vehicle that enables a user to easily control a predicted distance that can be travelled by displaying the predicted distance that can be travelled in response to the power consumption of electric loads on the electric vehicle. The device for controlling the electric vehicle according to an embodiment of the present invention may include: a power consumption detector that detects a first power consumption of main electric loads associated with the operation of the electric vehicle and a second power consumption of optional electric loads on the electric vehicle; a control unit that determines a first predicted distance that can be travelled corresponding to the first power consumption detected and a second predicted distance that can be travelled corresponding to the second power consumption detected; and a display that displays the first and second predicted distances that can be travelled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on T-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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 on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights