DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “the steps” in line 2.
Claim 1 recites “the automated system” in line 4.
Claim 1 recites “the system” in line 6.
Claim 1 recites “the power data” in line 7.
Claim 1 recites “the recorded power time series data” in line 10.
Claim 1 recites “the nearest time sequence in line 12.
Claim 1 recites “the load” in line 13.
Claim 1 recites “the mapped time data” in line 13.
Claim 1 recites “the classified load profile” in line 14.
Claim 3 recites “the loads” in line 1.
Claim 4 recites “the same circuit” in line 2.
Claim 5 recites “the loads” in line 2.
Claim 6 recites “the current and voltages signals of the connected loads” in lines 1-2.
Claim 11 recites “the load profiles” in line 1 and “the time of acquisition or at a later date” in lines 1-2.
Claim 1 includes the punctuation issue “… data, comprising …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… data comprising …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue of “… a change in power signal …” in line 9. Suggested claim language: “… a change in a power signal”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “… a datastore” in line 5 and “… a datastore” in line 14. The limitation of “… a datastore” in line 14 should read “… the datastore” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “… a datastore” in line 5; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 12 includes the punctuation issue “… system, comprising …” in line 1. Suggested claim language: “… system, comprising …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 12 includes the punctuation issue “… and, …” in line 4. Suggested claim language: “… and …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note: The claims are replete with grammatical and punctuation errors. The Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the claims for any further issues that were inadvertently omitted by the Examiner.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites a disaggregation and identification method comprising of a combination of steps, therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “performing nearest neighbor comparison of the recorded power time series data to the timing sequence of the operation data”; “mapping each event timestamp to the nearest time sequence”; and classifying the load according to the mapped time data.
The limitations of “performing nearest neighbor comparison of the recorded power time series data to the timing sequence of the operation data” and “mapping each event timestamp to the nearest time sequence” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0348085 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0031]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “classifying the load according to the mapped time data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “classifying the load …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… the mapped time data”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “obtaining operation data from an automated control management system”; “extracting a timing sequence from the operation data for each load in the automated system”; storing each timing sequence in a datastore”; “storing each timing sequence in a datastore”; “streaming aggregated power data from a load center associated with the system, wherein the power data comprises measured electrical signals”; “recording time stamps for each new event measured from the streamed aggregated power data, wherein an event is a change in power signal at a load”; and “storing the classified load profile in a datastore”.
The limitations of “… automated control management system” and “… a datastore” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “… a load” and “… a load center associated with the system” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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)).
The limitations of “obtaining operation data from an automated control management system”; “extracting a timing sequence from the operation data for each load in the automated system”; “storing each timing sequence in a datastore”;
“streaming aggregated power data from a load center associated with the system, wherein the power data comprises measured electrical signals”; “recording time stamps for each new event measured from the streamed aggregated power data, wherein an event is a change in power signal at a load”; and “storing the classified load profile in a datastore” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “obtaining”, “extracting”, “storing”, “streaming”, “recording”, and “storing” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… automated control management system” and “… a datastore” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitations of “… a load” and “… a load center associated with the system” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “obtaining operation data from an automated control management system”; “extracting a timing sequence from the operation data for each load in the automated system”; “storing each timing sequence in a datastore”; “streaming aggregated power data from a load center associated with the system, wherein the power data comprises measured electrical signals”; “recording time stamps for each new event measured from the streamed aggregated power data, wherein an event is a change in power signal at a load”; and “storing the classified load profile in a datastore”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the automated control management system is a ladder logic program, controlling a plurality of programmable logic controllers”.
The limitation of “… the automated control management system is a ladder logic program …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “… programmable logic controllers” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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)).
The limitation of “… controlling a plurality of programmable logic controllers” is a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the automated control management system is a ladder logic program …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… a production process for manufacturing a chemical product at an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising at least one equipment …” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… controlling a plurality of programmable logic controllers” represents an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the loads are controlled from the load center based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals”.
The limitations “… the loads …” and “… the load center …” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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)).
The limitation of “… the loads are controlled … based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals” is a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… the loads …” and “… the load center …” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… the loads are controlled … based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals” represents an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the load center is connected to a plurality of loads connected to the same circuit”.
The limitation “… the load center is connected to a plurality of loads connected to the same circuit” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the load center is connected to a plurality of loads connected to the same circuit” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the loads are associated with industrial or domestic devices”.
The limitation “… the loads are associated with industrial or domestic devices” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the loads are associated with industrial or domestic devices” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the load center captures the current and voltage signals of the connected loads”.
The limitations of “… the load center …” and “… the connected loads” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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)).
The limitation of “… captures the current and voltage signals …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “captures” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements “… the load center …” and “… the connected loads” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… captures the current and voltage signals …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
The limitation of claim 7 merely further details each recorded event of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 8:
The limitation of claim 8 merely further details “classifying the load” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 9:
The limitation of claim 9 merely further details “the datastore” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 10:
The limitation of claim 10 merely further details “the datastore” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 11:
The limitation of claim 11 merely further details “classifying the load” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 represents an equivalent an disaggregation and dentification system claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
The claim further recites the additional limitation of “a processor”.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a processor”.
The limitation of “a processor” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional element does not individually integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “a processor”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0354982 A1 (hereinafter Fawaz) in view of United Kingdom Application No. GB 2 488 164 A (hereinafter Pias).
As per claim 1, Fawaz substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Fawaz teaches the limitations of a disaggregation and identification method arranged to disaggregate and identify aggregated electrical load data, comprising the steps of:
obtaining operation data from an automated control management system (pg. 2, par. [0034], pg. 3, par. [0048], and pg. 6, par. [0089] and [0090]; i.e. [0034]: “… a server may provide a signal to an I/O port of a PLC, to start or to stop an operation controlled by the PLC. For instance a first signal provided by a server instigates a ladder logic sequence on the PLC, which controls a process or a machine or a plurality of machines.”, [0048]: “… a further aspect of the present invention, a specific power consumption of a device is determined from the on/off behavior of the related PLC or control computer and by monitoring the overall power consumption in a facility by a power meter.”; and [0089]: “In step 510, the server records a switching event. … The server can record a switching event (event takes place, by changing of output level) (and) determine from the changing power consumption what the event is. An increase in power consumption means a device is switched on. A decrease means the device is switched off. An I/O channel is associated at the server with a device.”);
extracting a timing sequence from the operation data for each load (Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. an on/off device and variable power consuming device) in the automated system (pg. 2, par. [0034], pg. 3, par. [0048], and pg. 6, par. [0089], [0090] [0092]; i.e. [0034]: “… a server may provide a signal to an I/O port of a PLC, to start or to stop an operation controlled by the PLC. For instance a first signal provided by a server instigates a ladder logic sequence on the PLC, which controls a process or a machine or a plurality of machines.”, [0048]: “… a further aspect of the present invention, a specific power consumption of a device is determined from the on/off behavior of the related PLC or control computer and by monitoring the overall power consumption in a facility by a power meter.”; [0089]: “In step 510, the server records a switching event. … The server can record a switching event (event takes place, by changing of output level) (and) determine from the changing power consumption what the event is. An increase in power consumption means a device is switched on. A decrease means the device is switched off. An I/O channel is associated at the server with a device.”, and [0092]: “… a further aspect of the present invention, power consumption may be recorded from the time a status is being changed to the time a device achieves a steady power consumption level.”);
storing each timing sequence in a datastore (pg. 3, par. [0045], pg. 6, par. [0089] and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. a storing component of a server, [0045]: “The server 14 is configured to receive data, such as PLC status, from PLCs and other control computers and is also configured to provide instructions to a PLC and other control computers.”, and [0089]: “In step 510, the server records a switching event.”);
streaming aggregated power data from a load center (pg. 5, par. [0068] and Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. a power meter) associated with the system, wherein the power data comprises measured electrical signals (pg. 3, par. [0048] and [0053] and pg. 6, par. [0087] and [0088]; i.e. [0087]: “In step 500 a power meter provides power consumption data of for instance a facility. This may be instantaneous or semi-instantaneous power consumption data over periods ranging from b 0.1 sec to 10 sec. to 30 sec.” and [0088]: “… recording of power consumption measurement may also take place based on detected switching events. For instance at the moment of detection and 1-10 seconds after switching. Recording of power consumption by the server may also be based on detection of power consumption change, provided with a time stamp.”);
recording time stamps for each new event measured from the streamed aggregated power data, wherein an event is a change in power signal at a load (pg. 3, par. [0047] and [0048] and pg. 6, par. [0088]; i.e. [0047]: “… one power meter is provided to monitor the total power consumption of the devices controlled by the PLCs. In another embodiment of the present invention, an individual power group that is part of the power network monitored via the server 14, has its own power meter.” and [0088]: “… recording of power consumption measurement may also take place based on detected switching events.”);
performing a comparison of the recorded power time series data to the timing sequence of the operation data (pgs. 3-4, par. [0054] and pgs. 6-7, par. [0098]; i.e. [0054]: “a plot is derived and displayed showing which equipment is being turned on and off over time. … this plot is overlaid with an electric loads state change in a time plot 320 as shown in FIG. 3 time plot. The plots can be used for visual representation. FIG. 3 further illustrates an asynchronous character of the switching of devices.” and [0098]: “… a plot showing which fixture or appliance is being turned on and off over time is derived. By overlaying this plot on top of the electric loads state change over time plot, a processor is configured to associate the power consumption characteristics of the individual loads or load clusters with the individual fixtures, appliance, or clusters.”); and
storing the load profile (pg. 4, par. [0056]; i.e. “… the switches, power consumption and the differential power consumption are determined and organized in a retrievable data format, for instance in an array, as illustrated in array 400 in FIG. 4.”).
Fawaz does not expressly teach performing nearest neighbor comparison;
mapping each event timestamp to the nearest time sequence;
classifying the load according to the mapped time data; and
storing the classified load profile in a datastore.
However Pias, in an analogous art of monitoring power consumption in a system (pg. 2, lines 14-22), teaches the missing limitations of performing nearest neighbor comparison (pg. 11, lines 26-32 and pg. 18, lines 5-9; i.e. pg. 18, lines 5-9: “… other types of classifiers may be used including but not limited to k-nearest neighbour (k-NN) …”);
mapping each event timestamp to a nearest time sequence (pg. 17, lines 25-30; i.e. “… this machine learning classifier finds a mapping from the input feature energy data onto a finite number of appliance classes (e.g. kettle, shower pump, fan oven, game console, TV, fridge, washing machine).”);
classifying a load according to a mapped time data (pg. 17, lines 25-30; i.e. “… this machine learning classifier finds a mapping from the input feature energy data onto a finite number of appliance classes (e.g. kettle, shower pump, fan oven, game console, TV, fridge, washing machine).”); and
storing a classified load profile in a datastore (pg. 3, lines 27-30, pg. 18, lines 19-20 and pg. 19, lines 1-3; i.e. pg. 3, lines 27-30: “The specific energy profile may be recorded in a learning step in which an energy profile for the first type of device in the system is recorded and labelled.” and pg. 18, lines 19-20: “FIG. 9 illustrates an example of mathematical tools that may be employed to create a database of known appliances by means of learning from existing energy datasets.”) for the purpose of identifying power consumption attributable to a particular type of powered device in system (pg. 2, lines 23-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Fawaz to include the addition of the limitations of performing nearest neighbor comparison; mapping each event timestamp to a nearest time sequence; classifying a load according to a mapped time data; and storing a classified load profile in a datastore to advantageously reduce power demand and carbon emission (Pias: pg. 1, lines 21-22).
As per claim 2, Fawaz teaches the automated control management system is a ladder logic program, controlling a plurality of programmable logic controllers (pg. 2, par. [0034], pg. 3, par. [0044], and Fig. 1, elements 10 and 12; i.e. PLC; [0034]: “… a server may provide a signal to an I/O port of a PLC, to start or to stop an operation controlled by the PLC. For instance a first signal provided by a server instigates a ladder logic sequence on the PLC, which controls a process or a machine or a plurality of machines.”, [0044]: “… PLCs 10 and 12, each controlling at least one apparatus. PLC 10 controls an on/off device 18. PLC 12 controls a variable power consuming device 20.”).
As per claim 4, Fawaz teaches the load center (Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. the power meter) is connected to a plurality of loads (Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. the on/off device and the variable power consuming device) connected to the same circuit (pg. 1, par. [0007] and [0017]; i.e. [0007]: “… a power consumption of each of a plurality of devices in a power circuit, comprising a network including a power meter configured to disaggregate a first individual power consumption from a total power consumption in the power circuit”).
As per claim 5, Fawaz teaches the loads (Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. the on/off device and the variable power consuming device) are associated with industrial or domestic devices (pg. 2, par. [0039]; i.e. “With an HAC, a consumer can check security of a house, such as a status of locks, doors and windows and status of equipment in the house, including heating and air-conditioning, lighting and appliances.”).
As per claim 6, Fawaz teaches the load center (Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. the power meter) captures the current and voltage signals of the connected loads (pgs. 2-3, par. [0040] and [0045]; i.e. [0040]: “Different analysis techniques exist that can identify electric load state changes on an electric circuit based on the measurements over time of the current, voltage, power factor etc. at a single point on the circuit.”).
As per claim 9, Fawaz teaches the datastore (Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. a server) is located locally at system level (pg. 3, par. [0045]; i.e. “The server 14 is configured to receive data, such as PLC status, from PLCs and other control computers and is also configured to provide instructions to a PLC and other control computers.”).
As per claim 10, Fawaz teaches the datastore is located on a server (pg. 3, par. [0045] and pg. 6, par. [0089] and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. the storing component of the server and [0045]: “The server 14 is configured to receive data, such as PLC status, from PLCs and other control computers and is also configured to provide instructions to a PLC and other control computers.” and [0089]: “In step 510, the server records a switching event.”).
Fawaz does not expressly teach a remote server or cloud, or the like.
However Pias, in an analogous art of monitoring power consumption in a system (pg. 2, lines 14-22), teaches the missing limitation of a remote server or cloud (pg. 15, lines 24-27; i.e. “… a processing server located in the building or externally (i.e. in the Cloud)) for the purpose of identifying power consumption attributable to a particular type of powered device in system (pg. 2, lines 23-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Fawaz to include the addition of the limitation of a remote server or cloud to advantageously reduce power demand and carbon emission (Pias: pg. 1, lines 21-22).
As per claim 11, Fawaz teaches the load profiles are analyzed at the time of acquisition or at a later date (pgs. 2-3, par. [0040] and pgs. 3, par. [0054]; i.e. [0054]: “Based on output signals of the PLCs or control computers and equipment identification data, a plot is derived and displayed showing which equipment is being turned on and off over time. ”).
As per claim 12, Fawaz substantially teaches the claimed invention. Fawaz teaches the limitations of a disaggregation and identification system, comprising:
a processor (pg. 7, par. [0104] and Fig. 6, element 603);
an automated control management system (pg. 2, par. [0034] and pg. 3, par. [0048]; i.e. [0034]: “… a server may provide a signal to an I/O port of a PLC, to start or to stop an operation controlled by the PLC. For instance a first signal provided by a server instigates a ladder logic sequence on the PLC, which controls a process or a machine or a plurality of machines.”);
a load center (pg. 5, par. [0068] and Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. a power meter); and,
a datastore (pg. 3, par. [0045], pg. 6, par. [0089] and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. a storing component of a server, [0045]: “The server 14 is configured to receive data, such as PLC status, from PLCs and other control computers and is also configured to provide instructions to a PLC and other control computers.”, and [0089]: “In step 510, the server records a switching event.”),
wherein the processor is configured to disaggregate and identify load data from an aggregated electrical signal using the method of claims 1 (i.e. “… disaggregate and identify load data from an aggregated electrical signal using the method of claims 1” stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 by virtue of incorporation of the method of claim 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0120922 A1 (hereinafter Vaswani).
As per claim 3, Fawaz teaches the loads are controlled based on an automated schedule of signals (pg. 7, par. [0101]; i.e. “The programs generates a schedule expressed in PLC programs or control computer programs to control the devices in a facility. A scheduling/optimization programs generates a schedule under preset conditions and defined constraints.”).
Fawaz does not expressly teach the loads are controlled from the load center based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals.
Fawaz in view of Pias does not expressly teach the loads are controlled from the load center based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals.
However Vaswani, in an analogous art of monitoring an amount of a commodity consumed over a period of time (pg. 5, par. [0038]), teaches the missing limitation of loads (i.e. refrigerators and/or freezers of a supermarket) are controlled from a load center (Fig. 1, element 130; i.e. meter(s)) based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals (pg. 9, par. [0064]; i.e. “… the supermarket may have a contractual agreement with a distribution network to reduce power consumption during periods of heavy load in the distribution network … In such a situation, the communication station 120 can transmit a control command to the node(s) at the meter(s) 130 of the supermarket to temporarily turn off one or more of the refrigerators and/or freezers of the supermarket for a predetermined time period. For example, to control demand at peak times such as during hot days in the summer or cold days in the winter, the communication station 120 can utilize so-called "demand response events" to automatically adjust the thermostat settings of one or more of the refrigerators and/or freezers of the supermarket by a predetermined number of increments and/or a predetermined coefficient for a limited time period.”) for the purpose of controlling power consumption (pg. 9, par. [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Fawaz in view of Pias to include the addition of the limitation of loads are controlled from a load center based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals to facilitate improved management and operation of a utility network (Vaswani: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0207398 A1 (hereinafter Lai).
As per claim 7, Fawaz in view of Pias does not expressly teach each recorded event is within an event threshold.
However Lai, in an analogous art of a system for monitoring energy consumption (pg. 1, par. [0005]), teaches the missing limitation of each recorded event is within an event threshold (pgs. 3-4, par. [0036]-[0038] and [0042]; i.e. [0042]: “Upon identifying or detecting a difference that exceeds a threshold, the event detection unit 110 can monitor the magnitude of the power input stream (such as the real power input stream) for a time frame (such as 100 milliseconds). During this time, the event detection unit 110 identifies or detects if the change in the magnitude of the power input stream is maintained at least at an average amount or percentage (such as 70%) of the initial change to the magnitude of the power input stream. If the change over the time frame is maintained, the event detection unit 110 may record the signal data (such as a waveform) related to the electrical event over the time frame.”) for the purpose of produce real-time results within a short period of time (pg. 4, par. [0042])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Fawaz in view of Pias to include the addition of the limitation of each recorded event is within an event threshold to advantageously yield better performance in device classification accuracy (Lai: pg. 3, par. [0030]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0096987 A1 (hereinafter Omitaomu).
As per claim 8, Fawaz in view of Pias does not expressly teach a classification threshold is used to avoid spurious associations.
However Omitaomu, in an analogous art of a system for monitoring utility consumption (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of a classification threshold is used to avoid spurious associations (pg. 5, par. [0060]) for the purpose of distinguishing pattern characteristics (pg. 5, par. [0060])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Fawaz in view of Pias to include the addition of the limitation of a classification threshold is used to avoid spurious associations to advantageously ensure monitoring of utility of energy consumed in an efficient manner (Omitaomu: pg. 1, par. [0007]) and curtail residential and commercial energy use (Omitaomu: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to energy/power monitoring systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0112780 A1 discloses an electrical power consumption measuring system that is capable of determining and presenting power consumed by individual appliances at a home or premises.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0290230 A1 discloses monitoring of energy consumption in buildings and providing consumption awareness to users and building management systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0103215 A1 discloses utility meter readings are generated at low sampling rates which are disaggregated to identify consumer usage activities.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0110621 A1 discloses systems and methods for creating appliance signatures based upon whole house composite load profiles.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0268281 A1 discloses electricity patterns at a location are monitored and analyzed.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0301549 A1 discloses accessing an energy management policy for a plurality of devices, wherein the devices are coupled with a first structure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0286191 A1 discloses a simulated protected loads panel system for managing energy consumption and obviating a need to install a physical protected loads panel in conjunction with an energy storage system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0192649 A1 discloses a facility (e.g., home) control system using a community of components (e.g., comprising one or more sensors, emitters and/or transceivers) that are configured to locate at least a portion of its members and control one or more devices of the facility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117