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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
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.
3. Claims 2-5 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.
Claim limitations include a multitude of parameters listed in equations 1-43 in claims 2-5. For example, claim 2 discloses parameters Dis and SCD above a log normal equation without any stated connection to that equation. Within equation (1), parameters such as d, σ, and μ , are not defined. Similarly, Zms,t and SCZ are listed above an equation for a Poisson model, equation (2), and the claim fails to point out how the parameters are connected to the equation. Within (2), P(i), λi, i, and lz are not defined. As a result, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-5 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-5 are directed to a process (method), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of increasing the revenue of vehicle to grid (V2G) operations through energy management optimization models and techniques.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A two-stage stochastic vehicle-to-grid (V2G) scheduling method for maximizing operator revenue, which is used for an energy system the method comprising:
obtaining a day-ahead parameter set of EVs within an operator's service area, issuing
scheduling invitation agreements to EVs within the service area, and classifying EVs accepting
the scheduling invitation agreements as in-agreement EVs and EVs not responding to or refusing the scheduling invitation agreements as out-of-agreement EVs; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
establishing a random scenario set based on the day-ahead parameter set of EVs within the service area, conditions of the in-agreement EVs and the out-of-agreement EVs, wherein when a predetermined random charging demand for the out-of-agreement EV s is met, optimal charging and discharging scheduling of the in-agreement EVs is performed; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mathematical formulas or equations),
in consideration of random factors being independent of one another, establishing a final random scenario combining a V2G scheduling resource and renewable energy power generation, and establishing a V2G two-stage nonlinear stochastic programming model based on the final random scenario; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mathematical concepts, formulas or equations), and
maximizing a total revenue of a V2G operator by using the V2G two-stage nonlinear
stochastic programming model, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Additional limitations define a random scenario set including V2G scheduling, comprising a random scenario of an initial state of charge (SOC) using a log-normal distribution model, a V2G service station resource using a homogeneous Poisson model and a scenario of load uncertainty on a power supply side or demand side, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 2), a random scenario of wind power generation using Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) according to a Weibull distribution model and a fitting model, and photovoltaic power generation using historical data and random sampling, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 3), combining four random scenarios to calculate a probability of a scenario combination, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 4) and a V2G two-stage nonlinear stochastic model with an objective function to maximize total revenue of the V2G operator, and a series of constraints to bound the problem using a series of formulas and calculations. Constraints include, charging and discharge exclusion, constraints on charging constraint of EVs, discharging constraints on EVs, the maximum number of charging and discharging switching times for EVs, initial state constraints of EVs during grid connection, constraints on a maximum number of in-service vehicles at V2G nodes, charging and discharging capacity constraints of EVs, SOC constraints of EVs, power balance constraint of EVs, constraints on charging and discharging climbing of EVs, maximum V2G service capacity constraints at nodes, constraints on power balance of network nodes, and conversion of non-linear terms in order to improve model solution quality and computational speed, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 5).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving judgement, observation, evaluation and opinion as well as mathematical concepts, formulas, equations, and calculations.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-5 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-5 recite additional limitations which are hardware or
software elements such as programming based on a computer or processor, and electric vehicles (EVs), charging and discharging stations, and a power grid, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-5 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
6. Claim 1 is not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2-5 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claim 1.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Rombouts, (US 20120133337 A1), “Method and System for Charging a Fleet of Batteries,” and Al-Awami, (US 20190359065 A1), “Optimal Dispatch of Electric Vehicles Performing V2G Regulation.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 1, A two-stage stochastic programming-based vehicle-to-grid (V2G) scheduling method for maximizing operator revenue, Rombouts teaches, a two-stage (day-ahead and intra-day) V2G scheduling method, [0018], stochastically modeling user behavior for at least part of the fleet of batteries, [0045] and [0071], and maximizing profit, [0092], used for an energy system comprising electric vehicles (EVs), charging and discharging stations, and a power grid, Rombouts invention includes a method for scheduling the charging/no charging/discharging of a fleet of batteries, and limits in the distribution grid, while satisfying the EV user constraints (e.g. the level of state of charge the drivers want to have by a given time of day) [0018]. Al-Awami teaches the day-ahead parameter set of EVs within an operator's service area, issuing scheduling invitation agreements to EVs within the service area, and classifying EVs accepting the scheduling invitation agreements as in-agreement EVs and EVs not responding to or refusing the scheduling invitation agreements as out-of-agreement EVs; via an EV aggregator who has aggregated a set of EVs (obtained agreements) to facilitate charging of respective EVs in a set of EVs. Rombouts targets a random scenario set based on the day-ahead parameter set of EVs within the service area, via the energy portfolio manager's specific future and current (e.g. day-ahead and intra-day) balancing needs, [0018], conditions of the in-agreement EVs and the out-of-agreement EVs, (stochastically modeling user behavior for at least part of the fleet of batteries, based on collected descriptive statistics of user behavior, [0044], and dynamically optimizing the battery charge schedules for individual batteries in the fleet in consideration of the stochastic modeled user behavior, 0045]), wherein when a predetermined random charging demand for the out-of-agreement EV s is met, (optimizing the battery charge schedules for individual batteries in the fleet in consideration of the stochastic modeled user behavior, 0045]), optimal charging and discharging scheduling of the in-agreement EVs is performed; Rombouts’ charge control algorithm shall optimize the charging/discharging patterns of the batteries such that an energy portfolio manager's day ahead and intra-day balancing needs are maximally addressed, [0087].
Neither Rombouts or Al-Awami included consideration of random factors being independent of one another, establishing a final random scenario combining a V2G scheduling resource and renewable energy power generation, and establishing a V2G two-stage nonlinear stochastic programming model based on the final random scenario.
Both Rombouts and Al-Awami sought to maximizing a total revenue of a V2G operator, Rombouts [0015] and Al-Awami [0037], but neither used a V2G two-stage nonlinear
stochastic programming model.
These individually or in combination along with other prior art, did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624