DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 15 June 2026. Claims 1-7 and 10-12 have been amended. Claims 13-16 have been newly added. Claims 1-16 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 6, filed 15 June 2026, with respect to objected claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 15 June 2026. The objections of claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 6-8, filed 15 June 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
For example, technical improvements are provided for the automated control management system that enable more accurate disaggregation and identification of load data from aggregated power data, which in turn results in classified load profiles, which are used to effect improved control resulting in the optimized operation of the power system. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 1)
As described in the present application, in field of the invention, the optimization of centrally-controlled automated power systems has risen to prominent focus, particularly due to the need to improve efficiency and power requirements of such systems. See published specification (US PAP 2024/0348085 A1), at paragraphs [0002]-[0004]. It has been found that more advanced automated control can be achieved by collating all signal data of the power system (including the assembly of all measurement data within the system). See published specification, at paragraph [0002]. Further, it has been found that obtaining, analyzing, and modeling this data is of great importance to optimization, particularly as it enhances the effectiveness of automated, centralized control. See published specification, at paragraphs [0003]-[0004]. However, prior to the present invention, there existed a significant roadblock to executing such optimization of the automated control of power systems. Namely, it was not technically feasible for existing systems to process circuit-level signals or to accurately determine relationships between different signals and operations of different devices. A reason for this being that signal data are often an aggregation of multiple load signatures, particularly where multiple signals are occurring at the same time from a wide range of potential loads connected to the same circuit. Existing automated control systems were not able to analyze each of the individual loads of each device connected to the circuit because it was not technically feasible to automatically disaggregate and identify individual load signatures, despite several attempts to find a solution. … The present invention, however, has solved this technical problem by adding functionality to a control management system to disaggregate and identify load data from aggregated load power data, using an unconventional, ordered combination of extracting a timing sequences from operation data of the automated control management system; obtaining a stream of the aggregated power data; recording event timestamps for changes in power signals from the aggregated power data; performing nearest neighbor comparison of the timestamp data to the timing sequences to generate mapping of the data, which can be used to generate classified load profiles. The load profiles provide modeled data discussed above as enabling the optimization of the control of power systems. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 7 - pg. 8, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2104 III. - SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
A claimed invention must be eligible for patenting. As explained in MPEP § 2106, there are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility: (a) first, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter; and (b) second, a claimed invention must be directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not a judicial exception (unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception). The judicial exceptions are subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 66, 70, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013)). See also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010) (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)).
See MPEP § 2106 for a discussion of subject matter eligibility in general, and the analytical framework that is to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter, MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of the statutory categories of invention, MPEP § 2106.04 for a discussion of the judicial exceptions, and MPEP § 2106.05 for a discussion of how to evaluate claims directed to a judicial exception for eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1) for form paragraphs for use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of subject matter eligibility. See also MPEP § 2105 for more information about claiming living subject matter, as well as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA )'s prohibition against claiming human organisms. Eligible subject matter is further limited by the Atomic Energy Act explained in MPEP § 2104.01, which prohibits patents granted on any invention or discovery that is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
The applicant has set forth advantages of use (i.e. benefits of “… enable more accurate disaggregation and identification of load data from aggregated power data …”; “It has been found that more advanced automated control can be achieved by collating all signal data of the power system (including the assembly of all measurement data within the system”; “… enhances the effectiveness of automated, centralized control.”; “Namely, it was not technically feasible for existing systems to process circuit-level signals or to accurately determine relationships between different signals and operations of different devices.”; and “… enabling the optimization of the control of power systems.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how the previously additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a); i.e. The applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to operating a power system per performing nearest neighbor comparisons). Hence, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Further, the criteria set forth for eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 does not require the lack of disclosure or teaching of claimed subject matter in cited references per MPEP 2104 III (i.e. the lack of citing references under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 does not provide evidence that the claimed invention is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
In regards in the applicant’s argument,
Moreover, regardless of whether claims 1-12 are viewed as reciting an exception under Prong One of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1-12 provide a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. As set forth in the Office's guidance, an element or combination of elements which reflect a technical improvement (e.g., to a computer or other technology) provide that a claim is directed to a practical application. As just described, the independent claims recite an ordered unconventional combination of elements that reflect a technical improvement to the automated operation of a power system by improving the functionality of its automated control management system to control connected loads. It is also respectfully submitted that the foregoing features of claims 1-12 providing the above-described technical improvements, would also provide an inventive concept under Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, for example, because they are unconventional features as evidenced below by their novelty and non-obviousness over the prior art. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pgs. 2-6, paragraph 4 of this Office action, and the argument herein as addressed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 8-13, filed 15 June 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 15 June 2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, 15, and 16 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) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0317444 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0286191 A1 (hereinafter Bazhinov).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0207398 A1 (hereinafter Lai).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0096987 A1 (hereinafter Omitaomu).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014-0129160 A1 (hereinafter Tran).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue (i.e. redundant claim language) of “… each of a plurality of loads of the connected loads …” in lines 12-13. Suggested claim language: “… each of the connected loads”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 13 recites “… optimizing the power system …” in lines 1-2 and “… claim 14 recites optimizing the power system …” in line 1. The limitation of “… optimizing the power system …” in claim 14 should read “… the optimizing of the power system …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “… optimizing the power system …” in claim 13; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 14 is 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) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites:
wherein optimizing the power system comprises … load monitoring based on the load profile, or performing digital health or device diagnostics based on the load profile.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0348085 A1 (instant application) recites:
The third step 303 of the method, as illustrated by the flow diagram 300 in FIG. 3, is to disaggregate and identify the electrical load based on the collated data, as stored in the datastore(s). The collated data is used to determine the power signature and load profile of one or more loads within the time-series. One of the new timestamp events is selected from the event timestamp datastore and nearest neighbour comparison is performed to each timing sequence (N sequences) available within the timing sequence datastore. The nearest neighbour analysis is performed until the closest timing sequence is found to correlate with the event timestamp. Once the timestamp and timing sequence are mapped the load can be classified by the relationship between the timing sequence and the load, according to the ladder logic programming. For example, if an event occurred at or near the same time as the output of a particular load was executed in the ladder logic program, then the event can be assigned to that load. A classification threshold is used to avoid spurious associations and false assignments. The mapped profile of the load is then stored in a load profile datastore. The load profile data can be used for load monitoring, digital health, device diagnostics, power optimisation purposes and the like. Again, all the datastores (timing sequence, event timestamp and load profile) may be located locally on the automated control management system or the data may be transmitted to datastores of a remote server (or cloud), allowing remote access and analysis. (pg. 3, par. [0031])
In summary, the specification does not disclose “… optimizing the power system comprises … load monitoring based on the load profile, or performing digital health or device diagnostics based on the load profile”. Hence, the only support for “… optimizing the power system comprises … load monitoring based on the load profile, or performing digital health or device diagnostics based on the load profile” is found in claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of “… optimizing the power system comprises performing optimization based on the power system …” in claim 14 (lines 1-2) fails to further limit the limitation of “… optimizing the power system …” in claim 13 (line 1). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-16 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 method of operating a power system 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 to determine, for each of the event timestamps, a corresponding nearest time sequence”; “mapping each of the event timestamps to the corresponding nearest time sequence to generate mapped time data”; and “classifying a load of the connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile”.
The limitations of “performing nearest neighbor comparison of the recorded power time series data to the timing sequence of the operation data to determine, for each of the event timestamps, a corresponding nearest time sequence” and “mapping each of the event timestamps to the corresponding nearest time sequence to generate mapped time data” (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 a load of the connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile”, 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 a load of the connected loads …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile”), 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 “the power system comprising an automated control management system coupled to connected loads”; “operating the automated control management system to control the connected loads thereby generating electrical signals”; “the aggregated power data comprising measurements of the electrical signals”; “obtaining operation data from the automated control management system”; “extracting a timing sequence from the operation data for each of a plurality of loads of the connected loads controlled by the automated control management system”; storing each of the timing sequences in a datastore”; “streaming the aggregated power data from a load center associated with the automated control management system to generate streamed aggregated power data”; “recording event timestamps for new events measured from the streamed aggregated power data to generate recorded power time series data, wherein each of the new events is a change in a power signal at one of the connected loads, the streamed aggregated data comprising the power signal”; and “storing the classified load profile in the datastore”.
The limitations of “… an automated control management system …”; “… a datastore”; and “… a load center associated with the automated control management system” 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 limitation of “the power system comprising an automated control management system coupled to connected loads” 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 limitations of “operating the automated control management system to control the connected loads thereby generating electrical signals”; “the aggregated power data comprising measurements of the electrical signals”; “obtaining operation data from the automated control management system”; “extracting a timing sequence from the operation data for each of a plurality of loads of the connected loads controlled by the automated control management system”; storing each of the timing sequences in a datastore”; “streaming the aggregated power data from a load center associated with the automated control management system to generate streamed aggregated power data”; “recording event timestamps for new events measured from the streamed aggregated power data to generate recorded power time series data, wherein each of the new events is a change in a power signal at one of the connected loads, the streamed aggregated data comprising the power signal”; and “storing the classified load profile in the datastore” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “operating”, “the aggregated power data”, “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 “… an automated control management system …”; “… a datastore”; and “… a load center associated with the automated control management system” 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 limitation of “the power system comprising an automated control management system coupled to connected loads” 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 limitations of “operating the automated control management system to control the connected loads thereby generating electrical signals”; “the aggregated power data comprising measurements of the electrical signals”; “obtaining operation data from the automated control management system”; “extracting a timing sequence from the operation data for each of a plurality of loads of the connected loads controlled by the automated control management system”; storing each of the timing sequences in a datastore”; “streaming the aggregated power data from a load center associated with the automated control management system to generate streamed aggregated power data”; “recording event timestamps for new events measured from the streamed aggregated power data to generate recorded power time series data, wherein each of the new events is a change in a power signal at one of the connected loads, the streamed aggregated data comprising the power signal”; and “storing the classified load profile in the datastore”, as discussed above, amount 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 comprising a plurality of programmable logic controllers executing a ladder logic program”.
The limitation of “… a plurality of programmable logic controllers executing 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)).
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 “… a plurality of programmable logic controllers executing 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).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does 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 automated control management systems controls the connected loads from the load center based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals”.
The limitation of “… the automated control management systems controls the connected loads from the load center …” is 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 limitation “… the connected loads …” 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 “… controls the connected loads from the load center 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 element of “… the automated control management systems controls the connected loads from the load center …” 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 additional limitation of “… the connected loads …” 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 “… controls the connected loads from the load center 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 the connected loads connected to a same circuit”.
The limitation of “… the load center is connected to a plurality of the connected loads connected to a same circuit” 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, 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 the connected loads connected to a same circuit” 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.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the connected loads are associated with industrial or domestic devices”.
The limitation “… the connected 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 connected 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 current and voltage signals of the connected loads, the electrical signals comprising the current and voltage signals of the connected loads”.
The limitation of “… the load center …” 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 of “… the connected loads” 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 “… captures current and voltage signals of the connected loads, the electrical signals comprising the current and voltage signals of the connected loads” 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 element of “… the load center …” 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 additional limitation of “… the connected loads” 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 “… captures current and voltage signals of the connected loads, the electrical signals comprising the current and voltage signals of the connected loads”, 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 “new events” 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 a load of the connected loads” 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 “a 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 a load of the connected loads” 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 a power 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.
Claim 13:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “optimizing the power system based on the load profile”.
The limitation of “optimizing the power system based on the load profile” 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.
In the alternative, the limitation of “optimizing the power system based on the load profile”, 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. “optimizing the power system …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… the load profile”), 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.
Claim 14:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “optimizing the power system comprises performing power optimization based on the load profile, load monitoring based on the load profile, or performing digital health or device diagnostics based on the load profiles”.
The limitations of “… performing power optimization based on the load profile …” 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.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… performing power optimization based on the load profile …”, 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. “optimizing the power system …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… the load profile”), 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.
The limitation of “… load monitoring based on the load profile …”, 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. “… load monitoring …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… the load profile”), 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.
The limitations of “… performing digital health or device diagnostics based on the load profiles” are processes 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.
Claim 15:
The limitation of claim 15 merely further details “electrical signals” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
Claim 16:
The limitation of claim 16 merely further detail “operation data” and “a timing sequence” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale as set forth above in independent claim 1.
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, 9-12, 15, and 16 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) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0317444 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
As per claim 1, Fawaz substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Fawaz teaches the limitations of a method of operating a power system, the power system comprising an automated control management system (Fig. 1, element 10 and 12; i.e. programmable logic controllers) coupled to connected loads (pg. 2, par. [0032], pg. 5, par. [0069], and Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. [0032]: “A control program is stored in a non-volatile memory within the PLC to instruct the PLC what actions to take upon encountering particular input signals or conditions. In response to these input signals, for instance provided by input sensors, the PLC derives and generates output signals which are transmitted via PLC output points to various output devices, such as actuators and relays, to control the process.” and [0069]: “… load or machine is switched on or off by a PLC.”), the method comprising.
operating the automated control management system to control the connected loads (pg. 2, par. [0032] and pg. 5, par. [0069]; i.e. [0032]: “A control program is stored in a non-volatile memory within the PLC to instruct the PLC what actions to take upon encountering particular input signals or conditions. In response to these input signals, for instance provided by input sensors, the PLC derives and generates output signals which are transmitted via PLC output points to various output devices, such as actuators and relays, to control the process.” and [0069]: “… load or machine is switched on or off by a PLC.”), thereby generating 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.”);
disaggregating and identifying load data from aggregated power data, the aggregated power data comprising measurements of the 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.”), wherein the disaggregating and identifying load data from aggregated power data comprises:
obtaining operation data from the 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 of a plurality of loads of the connected loads (Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. an on/off device and variable power consuming device) controlled by the automated system to generate a plurality of timing sequences (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 of the timing sequences 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 the aggregated power data from a load center (pg. 5, par. [0068] and Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. a power meter) associated with the automated control management system to generate streamed aggregated power data (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 events timestamps for new events measured from the streamed aggregated power data to generate recorded power time series data, wherein each of the new events is a change in a power signal at one of the connected loads, the streamed aggregated data comprising the power signal (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 to determine, for each of the event timestamps, a corresponding comparison (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 of the event timestamps to the corresponding nearest time sequence to generate mapped time data;
classifying a load of the connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile; and
storing the classified load profile in the 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 method (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 timestamps to a corresponding nearest time sequence to generate 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).”);
classifying a load of connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile (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 method; mapping each event timestamps to a corresponding nearest time sequence to generate mapped time data; classifying a load of connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile; and storing a classified load profile in a datastore to advantageously reduce power demand and carbon emission (Pias: pg. 1, lines 21-22).
Fawaz in view of Pias does not expressly teach nearest neighbor comparison.
However Suzuki, in an analogous art of monitoring a condition and nearest neighbor (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 4, par. [0071]), teaches the missing limitation of nearest neighbor comparison (pg. 4, par. [0071]-[0075]) for the purpose classifying data (pgs. 4-5, par. [0069]).
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 nearest neighbor comparison to advantageously prevent erroneous determination of desired data and enable an appropriate identification to be carried out (Suzuki: pg. 1, lines par. [0013] and pg. 2, par. [0015]).
As per claim 2, Fawaz teaches the automated control management system is comprising a plurality of programmable logic controllers executing a ladder logic program (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 connected loads (Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. the on/off device and the variable power consuming device) connected to a 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 connected 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 current and voltage signals of the connected loads, the electrical signals comprising 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 remotely from the automated control management system on 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 analyzing the load profile at a 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 power system (pg. 2, par. [0032], pg. 5, par. [0069], and Fig. 1; i.e. [0032]: “A control program is stored in a non-volatile memory within the PLC to instruct the PLC what actions to take upon encountering particular input signals or conditions. In response to these input signals, for instance provided by input sensors, the PLC derives and generates output signals which are transmitted via PLC output points to various output devices, such as actuators and relays, to control the process.” and [0069]: “… load or machine is switched on or off by a PLC.”), 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.”) configured to control connected loads (pg. 2, par. [0032], pg. 5, par. [0069], and Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. [0032]: “A control program is stored in a non-volatile memory within the PLC to instruct the PLC what actions to take upon encountering particular input signals or conditions. In response to these input signals, for instance provided by input sensors, the PLC derives and generates output signals which are transmitted via PLC output points to various output devices, such as actuators and relays, to control the process.” and [0069]: “… load or machine is switched on or off by a PLC.”) thereby generating 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.”);
a load center (pg. 5, par. [0068] and Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. a power meter) connected to the electrical loads (pg. 5, par. [0068] and [0070]; i.e. [0070]: “Loads detected by the power meter can only be characterized electrically (i.e. real power consumption, reactive power, timestamps of state change).”); 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 execute a method to disaggregate and identify load data from aggregated power data, the aggregated power data comprising the 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.”),
wherein the method to the disaggregate and identify load data from aggregated power data comprises:
obtaining operation data from the 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 of a plurality of loads of the connected loads (Fig. 1, elements 18 and 20; i.e. an on/off device and variable power consuming device) controlled by the automated system to generate a plurality of timing sequences (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 of the timing sequences 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 the aggregated power data from the load center (pg. 5, par. [0068] and Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. the power meter) to generate streamed aggregated power data (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 events timestamps for new events measured from the streamed aggregated power data to generate recorded power time series data, wherein each of the new events is a change in a power signal at one of the connected loads, the streamed aggregated data comprising the power signal (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 to determine, for each of the event timestamps, a corresponding comparison (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 of the event timestamps to the corresponding nearest time sequence to generate mapped time data;
classifying a load of the connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile; and
storing the classified load profile in the 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 method (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 timestamps to a corresponding nearest time sequence to generate 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).”);
classifying a load of connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile (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 method; mapping each event timestamps to a corresponding nearest time sequence to generate mapped time data; classifying a load of connected loads according to the mapped time data to generate a classified load profile; and storing a classified load profile in a datastore to advantageously reduce power demand and carbon emission (Pias: pg. 1, lines 21-22).
Fawaz in view of Pias does not expressly teach nearest neighbor comparison.
However Suzuki, in an analogous art of monitoring a condition and nearest neighbor (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 4, par. [0071]), teaches the missing limitation of nearest neighbor comparison (pg. 4, par. [0071]-[0075]) for the purpose classifying data (pgs. 4-5, par. [0069]).
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 nearest neighbor comparison to advantageously prevent erroneous determination of desired data and enable an appropriate identification to be carried out (Suzuki: pg. 1, lines par. [0013] and pg. 2, par. [0015]).
As per claim 15, Fawaz teaches the electrical signals corresponding to the connected loads connected to a same circuit are measured as an aggregated power signal (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”), and wherein the aggregated power data comprises a time series of the aggregated power signal (pg. 3, par. [0053] and pg. 4, par. [0055]; i.e. [0053]: “… a digital electricity meter measures total consumed power almost instantaneously, at least every 10 seconds, preferably at least every second and more preferably several times per second. The digital electricity meter provides status information, including power consumption data, to the server.” and [0055]: “… power meter 16, which may be a smart power meter that provided disaggregated data, provides times series representing change in power consumption.”).
As per claim 16, Fawaz teaches the operation data comprises the ladder logic program (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.”), and the timing sequence is extracted from the ladder logic program (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.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0286191 A1 (hereinafter Bazhinov).
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 based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals.
Fawaz in view of Pias does not expressly teach the loads are controlled based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals.
Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki does not expressly teach the loads are controlled based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals.
However Bazhinov, in an analogous art of energy management systems (pg. 3, par. [0016]), teaches the missing limitation of loads are controlled based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals (pgs. 9-10, paragraph [0140], [0141], [0143], and [0144]; i.e. [0141]: “Data received from the sensor(s) can be classified and/or analyzed by an algorithm determining consumption. Data can be stored in memory for future analysis of consumption trends, such as over certain periods of time, or stored elsewhere, such as on or in the cloud. In one aspect, data is also aggregated to provide a combined view over total power consumption of the building/premises as well as consumption of certain circuit(s) and/or circuit groups, consumption of certain device types, consumption of certain loads, consumption of certain outlets, consumption of certain appliances, consumption of certain rooms, and so on.” and [0144]: “Based on sensor measurements, predicted/expected electricity usage, predicted/expected availability of electrical power, and/or user/consumer preferences, the software can be configured to allow for an operating schedule such that certain circuit(s), load(s), appliance(s), outlet(s), etc. to turn on/off at specific and/or automated scheduled times. For example, during a power outage the user can switch over to and/or the system can automatically access the connected ESS to supply power to various electrical circuits of choice, such as a hot water heater, computers and/or a refrigerator, and the circuit/power available to such selected appliances/loads can further be scheduled to operate at certain times.”) for the purpose of managing electrical energy consumption (pg. 3, par. [0016]).
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 in further view of Suzuki to include the addition of the limitation of loads are controlled based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki does not expressly teach the loads are controlled based on an automated schedule of aggregated signals to advantageously allow users to determine dynamically and flexibly which circuits to energize during grid outage based on cause and expected duration of outage, expected photovoltaic (PV) output, and expected household consumption (Bazhinov: pg. 3, par. [0025])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0207398 A1 (hereinafter Lai).
As per claim 7, Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki does not expressly teach each of the new events 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 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 in further view of Suzuki to include the addition of the limitation of each 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 Suzuki and 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 in further view of Suzuki 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]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014-0129160 A1 (hereinafter Tran).
As per claim 13, Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki does not expressly teach optimizing the power system based on the load profile.
However Tran, in an analogous art of an energy monitoring system (pg. 2, par. [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of optimizing a power system based on a load profile (pg. 12, par. [0103], [0104], and [0107]; i.e. [0103]: “… the process reads hourly energy load data from utility meters (400). Then the NILM engine disaggregates energy consumption for each of predetermined appliances from the hourly energy load data (410). Once the energy consumption has been disaggregated to show appliance energy usage data, the system can send normatively messages to users to reduce energy consumption (420).”, [0104]: “… the system has accurate energy usage models for the building and its occupants, the system applies normative messaging to successfully engage and motivate action across a very high percentage of targeted individuals. The normative message motivates office workers to take action which is one of the main challenges to achieving large scale energy savings. Participation rates in most energy-efficiency programs are typically less than 5%. By contrast, the messaging system achieves much higher energy-saving actions by presenting users with only relevant and immediately actionable suggestions on how to cut down power consumption in their immediate office/cubicle … The system enables energy consumers to increase energy efficiency, reduce costs, and realize environmental benefits.”, and [0107]: “Visualize usage data”; Examiner’s Note: The prior art of Tran meets the claimed limitation given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and the specification’s lack of details for performing “optimization”.) for the purpose of reducing energy consumption (pg. 1, par. [0010]).
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 in further view of Suzuki to include the addition of the limitation of optimizing a power system based on a load profile to advantageously increase energy efficiency, reduce costs, and realize environmental benefits (Tran: pg. 1, par. [0104]).
As per claim 14, Fawaz in view of Pias in further view of Suzuki does not expressly teach
However Tran, in an analogous art of an energy monitoring system (pg. 2, par. [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of optimizing the power system comprises performing power optimization based on the load profile or load monitoring based on the load profile (pg. 12, par. [0103], [0104], and [0107]; i.e. [0103]: “… the process reads hourly energy load data from utility meters (400). Then the NILM engine disaggregates energy consumption for each of predetermined appliances from the hourly energy load data (410). Once the energy consumption has been disaggregated to show appliance energy usage data, the system can send normatively messages to users to reduce energy consumption (420).”, [0104]: “… the system has accurate energy usage models for the building and its occupants, the system applies normative messaging to successfully engage and motivate action across a very high percentage of targeted individuals. The normative message motivates office workers to take action which is one of the main challenges to achieving large scale energy savings. Participation rates in most energy-efficiency programs are typically less than 5%. By contrast, the messaging system achieves much higher energy-saving actions by presenting users with only relevant and immediately actionable suggestions on how to cut down power consumption in their immediate office/cubicle … The system enables energy consumers to increase energy efficiency, reduce costs, and realize environmental benefits.”, and [0107]: “Visualize usage data”; Examiner’s Note: The prior art of Tran meets the claimed limitations given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and the specification’s lack of details for performing “optimization”.) for the purpose of reducing energy consumption (pg. 1, par. [0010]).
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 in further view of Suzuki to include the addition of the limitation of optimizing the power system comprises performing power optimization based on the load profile or load monitoring based on the load profile to advantageously increase energy efficiency, reduce costs, and realize environmental benefits (Tran: pg. 1, par. [0104]).
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 and classifying methods/systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0071092 A1 discloses load demands in a power system are managed by determining whether load demands on one or more power system components need to be varied.
U.S. Patent No. 10,489,457 B1 discloses methods, systems, and storage media for detecting events based on updates to node profiles from electronic activities.
U.S. Patent No. 11,154,251 B2 discloses system and method for classifying time series data for state identification.
U.S. Patent No. 12,306,707 B2 discloses prioritization of fault remediation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights