DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 01/20/2026. The claims 1- 6, 8- 12, 14- 16, & 18 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 is/are in independent form. The claims 7, 13, 17, & 19- 20 are cancelled by the applicant.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I) Arguments with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
As to amended independent claim 1 (by incorporating the features of the dependent claim 7), applicant argues that Marhoefer does not teach creating a plan for target period that includes a period that is in a past from the creation time of the plans as part of (“wherein the planning part creates the plans for a plan target period including a period that is in a future from a creation time of the plans and a period that is in a past from the creation time of the plans.”). That is, applicant argues that Marhoefer cannot create plan for the past time. Applicant argues that
“Marhoefer merely describes that the objective function may
consider historical data and projected (i.e., forecasted) future data when creating a plan. This disclosure describes the inputs used in generating a plan. It does not describe, teach, or suggest the creation of plans for past time periods”
(Remarks, page 17).
Response. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s disclosure in para. 085- 086 and fig. 5 show a “target period” (PT) that includes a past period (PT2) and future period (PT1). With respect to past period, applicant’s specification states that merely reading the values of the past period is akin to creating plan for the past period. See para. [085]:
“The planning part 14 creates plans using the actual result data when they were actually executed in the past period PT2, for the plan unit times TU included in the past period PT2, unlike the case of the plan unit times TU included in the future period PT1”.
The specification does not describe any other ways of creating plans for the historical period other than reading/collecting the historically generated plan again. Therefore, Marhoefer’s collecting of the “historical consumption profiles” to create future plan teaches/suggests the creating plan for the past period in light of the broad disclosure made in applicant’s own specification. The outstanding 103 rejection continues to stand.
II) Arguments with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (“Abstract Idea”)
Applicant argues, in substance, that the claims are eligible under 101 because the limitations cannot be practically performed in human’s mind. Furthermore, these limitations provide improvement over conventional energy management system thereby providing a practical applicant and an inventive step. See Remarks, pages 9- 16 in section A to Section C.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A) Applicant argues that the amended independent claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception under step 2, prong 1, because they cover specific, machine-implemented energy management architecture that requires the coordinated acquisition of heterogeneous operational data from multiple physical subsystems… One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these operations cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.” (Remarks, pages 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While these limitations cover information for “electric power information” and “gas conversion information” they are being represented by mathematical operations as can be seen in applicant’s specification in para. 075’s equation B2 and para. 066 in equation B1. Furthermore, the para. 028, 038, 044 show simple mathematical equation with variables that can be solved with pen and paper. Since the planning to create an electric power distribution plan and gas distribution plans are solutions of simple mathematical equations, they can be practically performed in human’s mind contrary to applicant’s position. Additionally, the claimed energy management system collects data for specific, machine-implemented energy management architecture (power supply part, gas supply parts), they are not part of the claimed “energy management system” as clearly shown in applicant’s fig. 1. Here, only the item 1 of fig. 1 corresponds to claimed energy management system and the items 10s, 21s, 30s are not part of the item 1.
Applicant’s own specification in para. 085 states “The planning part 14 creates plans using the actual result data when they were actually executed in the past period PT2,”. Thus, mere analyzing of the data of the actual result of the past is being described as creating plans for the past time. Accordingly, function performed by the planning part can be practically performed in human’s mind contrary to applicant’s arguments.
B) Applicant also argues that the claims claimed invention improves the functioning of an energy-management planning system itself by enabling it to use real historical result data in optimization processes, ensuring more accurate, efficient, and reliable energy-distribution planning. Therefore, when considered as a whole, independent claim 1 recites a particular manner of improving the technology of computer-implemented energy-management planning, rather than merely invoking computers as tools and can integrate a practical application (Remarks, page 14).
Response: While the claimed invention provide improvements over conventional activities, the improvement itself is improvement of the mental step or abstract idea even when viewing the claim as a whole. Please note that an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case. Here, the functioning of the computer (an energy management system correspond to applicant’s item 1 of figs. 1-2) is not improved here. Rather, the computer 1 with an information acquisition part 11 and “a planning part” 14 is merely being employed to execute/automate an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees that “recites a specific solution to a technical problem”. Rather, it provides an improvement over an abstract idea because the limitation (“create an electric power distribution plan….in a past from the creation time of the plants) that is alleged as providing improvement itself is an abstract idea and is not an additional element. Applicant’s argument is deemed not persuasive.
C) Applicant further argues that under Step 2B, specific technical improvements go beyond merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components… provides a novel energy management system for creating energy-distribution plans across both future and past plan-unit periods… they demonstrate
"improvements to any other technology or technical field" and are "beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (Remarks, pages 15- 16).
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the newly added limitation of claim 1 is found to be abstract idea. Thus, even if this were to be novel and non-obvious, still cannot provide an inventive step since it would be a novel abstract idea. However, the cited Marhoefer still teaches this limitation as well as discussed below. As to improvement to any other technological field or beyond generally linking the use of exception to a particular environment, applicant’s reply do not provide any specific reasons/supports as to how they provide improvements or other than generally linking the use of exception into a particular environment. For the similar reasons discussed above under section B, examiner found applicant’s arguments of this section C also not persuasive.
For at least the reasons set forth above and additional clarification provided below under 101 rejection, applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejections are deemed not persuasive. The outstanding 101 rejections are respectfully maintained.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1- 6, 8-12, 14- 16, & 18
“an information acquisition part”: shown as item 11 in fig. 1/4, wherein “The information acquisition part 11 includes, for example, a storage device such as a memory, and stores the information acquired as above in the storage device”, see Specification para. 015.
“a planning part”: shown as item 14 in fig. 1/4,wherein “The planning part 14 includes an arithmetic unit so that the arithmetic unit performs arithmetic processing using a program to create the electric power distribution plan X1 and the gas distribution plan X2.” See specification 019.
“an electric power supply part”: see spec, para. 081 (“parts may be virtual models” or actually existing parts)
“a plurality of electric power gas conversion parts”: see spec, para. 081
“a plurality of gas demand parts”: see spec. para. 081
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1- 6, 8- 12, 14- 16, & 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1: The claim is reproduced below.
1. An energy management system, comprising:
[a] an information acquisition part configured to acquire information including procured electric power information regarding an electric power supply part which procures electric power and supplies the procured electric power, gas conversion information regarding a plurality of electric power gas conversion parts which produce gas using the electric power supplied from the electric power supply part, and gas demand information regarding a plurality of gas demand parts which are supplied with the gas from the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts; and
[b] a planning part configured to create an electric power distribution plan regarding the electric power to be distributed from the electric power supply part to the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts and a gas distribution plan regarding the gas to be distributed from the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts to the plurality of gas demand parts so that an evaluation value evaluated based on the information acquired by the information acquisition part becomes an optimum value,
[c] wherein the planning part creates the plans for a plan target period including a period that is in a future from a creation time of the plans and a period that is in a past
from the creation time of the plans.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to an energy management system with various elements, namely an information acquisition part and an planning part. Thus, the claimed system is to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitation of “create an electric power distribution plan regarding the electric power to be distributed from the electric power supply part to the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts and a gas distribution plan regarding the gas to be distributed from the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts to the plurality of gas demand parts so that an evaluation value evaluated based on the information acquired by the information acquisition part becomes an optimum value” and
“wherein the planning part creates the plans for a plan target period including a period that is in a future from a creation time of the plans and a period that is in a past from the creation time of the plans”. These limitations (shown with italic emphasis) are an abstract idea based exception because they require performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer element, namely “a planning part” See, Spec, para. 019, “an arithmetic unit”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as in this case by using of a planning part.
That is, the limitation of creating an electric power distribution plan and a gas distribution plan to have evaluation value optimum (e.g., minimizing a cost) as claimed is a step that can be practically performed in human’s mind-- when the utilized data set size is relatively small-- at most using a pen and paper. See spec, paras. [028, 038, 044, 066] that show exemplary simple equation that can be used to create power distribution plan and gas distribution plan to minimize an evaluation value (e.g., a cost). That is, this is a simple mathematical calculation that users three variables (information of power, gas conversion, and gas demand) that can be performed in human’s mind.
The limitation [c] states the planning period covers both the past time and future time. The specification in para. 085 shows that the creating of the plan for the past time is implemented by merely reading/using “the actual result data when they were actually executed in the past period PT2”. This type of the action also can be performed in human’s mind via observation and evaluation. The creating plan for the future time is being implemented by solving a mathematic equation such as that shown in para. 028 of the specification. The solving of the equation like that of the para.028 can be practically performed in human’s mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element(s) of entire limitation [a] of acquiring three types of the information and a planning part of the limitation [b]. Here, the limitation [a] is a mere data gathering step required to perform the subsequent abstract idea hence is akin to adding an insignificant extra-solution activity. see MPEP 2106.05(g). The elements “a planning part” and “an information acquisition part” are generic computer elements and are recited at very high level of generality. Thus, these elements amount to nothing more than mere using generic computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and data collection step. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed “electric power supply part”, “gas conversion parts”, “a plurality of gas demand parts” are not positively recited since they are not structural elements of the claimed “management system” as clearly shown in applicant’s own fig. 2 and therefore do not provide patentable weight. Accordingly, the individual/combination of additional element(s) fail(s) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The additional elements in combination merely acquire data in the field of power gas conversion and gas to power conversion technological field using computing elements as a tool to execute an abstract idea. The claim as a whole do not provide any improvement to the computer/management system or any other technology. The creating gas distribution and electricity distribution plan that minimizes a cost/optimum value is a solution to an abstract/business idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of limitation [a] amount(s) to no more than adding of an insignificant extra solution activity. The using “a planning part”, wherein “an information acquisition part” and “a planning part” are akin to executing steps using computer as a tool. Furthermore, the limitation [a] is well-understood, routine, an conventional activity and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect by relying on references of the record per Berkheimer memo. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception other than data gathering in the electricity to gas conversion field using computer as a tool. The claim also does not provide a solution to a technical problem as well. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-16, & 18, they depend on claim 1 and recite same abstract idea and additional elements set forth in claim 1. These claims recite new limitations. However, they too also merely include well-understood data gathering types of the method steps (“acquires gas electric power reconversion Information” in claim 3; acquires power demand information in claim 4; “acquisition part includes virtual data” in claim 8) and steps that can be practically performed (e.g., “the planning part creates a plan” in claims 2- 3; “planning part creates a reconverted electric power distribution plan” in claim 4; “the evaluation value includes an evaluation value regarding a cost” and “the evaluation value includes an evaluation value regarding an influence on an environment” in claims 5- 6) in human’s mind and still abstract. Therefore, claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-16, & 18 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. The claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-16, & 18 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1- 6, 8- 12, 14- 16, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marhoefer ( US 7444189 B1, reference of the record).
Regarding claim 1, Marhoefer teaches an energy management system [“energy/hydrogen routing, management/optimization and communications device (the "optimizer") 132”, the optimizer device/system is shown in detail in fig. 2], comprising: (Fig. 1, Col 7 lines 55- 60);
[a] an information acquisition part [data input portion for the data of the Table 1 and Table 3 as part of “programmable, microprocessor-based unit that monitors the production of hydrogen, thermal energy”] configured to acquire information including (1) procured electric power information [variables from “Z=b1YI +b2Y2+b3Y3+ Y”, wherein “Y2 may represent the available supply of both electricity and thermal energy from renewable sources. Y3 may represent the requirement of electricity from the grid” and other variables listed in Table 1 such as x7, x8,…x14] regarding an electric power supply part1 [e.g., electric grid 126, Wind turbine 124, Photovoltaic Cells 102] which procures electric power and supplies the procured electric power, (2) gas conversion information [the “X2” and “X3” and associated constants “constants a1, a2 and a3” of the “Y=a1X1+a2X2+a3X3”, wherein “X2 may represent the electrolysis capability or electricity-producing capability that renewable energy sources can provide to the production of hydrogen” and “X3 may represent the electrolysis capability that the electric grid can provide to the production of hydrogen”. The electrolysis capability has impact on gas conversion] regarding a plurality of electric power gas conversion parts [Hydrogen Electrolyzer 108] which produce gas [output of the hydrogen storage 110] using the electric power supplied from the electric power supply part, and (3) gas demand information [“Y is the available quantity of hydrogen produced in the first objective function”, monitoring of “and hydrogen requirements for refueling to assess an optimal mix of renewable-based and utility-based energy”, “the hydrogen requirements of the hydrogen fueling apparatus 136”] regarding a plurality of gas demand parts [hydrogen car fueling 130 and hydrogen fuel cell 128] which are supplied with the gas from the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts (Col 3 lines 55- 68, Col 4 lines 1- 15, 50-55; Fig. 1; Col 10 lines 60-68); and
[b] a planning part [outputting portion of the optimizer using the inputs of the table 1 and table 2] configured to create (1) an electric power distribution plan [“optimizing respective amounts of power obtained from the utility-provided energy sources, produced by the renewable energy sources, and produced by converting hydrogen in the stored volume of hydrogen to energy”] regarding the electric power to be distributed from the electric power supply part to the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts and (2) a gas distribution plan [“Y may represent the goal of creating a determined nonzero volume of hydrogen”, “production of a specific volume of hydrogen or a volume of hydrogen within a range of volumes”] regarding the gas to be distributed from the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts to the plurality of gas demand parts so that an evaluation value [“the optimization method seeks to simultaneously minimize two objective functions: Y=a1X1+a2X2+a3X3 and Z=b1Y1+b2Y2+b3Y3+Y”; “objective function is to minimize the total cost of energy within the context of producing and maintaining a user defined, nonzero volume of hydrogen”] evaluated based on the information acquired by the information acquisition part becomes an optimum value (Col 3 lines 55- 58; Col 8 lines 25-35; Col 10 lines 50-68; Claim 1);
wherein the planning part creates the plans for a plan target period including a
period that is in a future from a creation time of the plans and a period that is in a past [“take into account historical and projected profiles”. Examiner note applicant’s specification in paras. 085- 086 states “the actual result data when they were
actually executed in the past period PT2…the past period PT2 for instance to create plans for the past period PT2”. Thus, the reading of the historical data can meet the target period of the past time as claimed due to specification’s broad defining of how the plan for the past can be created] from the creation time of the plans (Col. 8, lines 4-12, Col 11, lines 55- 60, Col 12, lines 20- 25, Claim 8).
One may attempt to argue that the claimed sequences of operations are not necessarily in the order as disclosed in Marhoefer. Hence Marhoefer may not necessarily be able to anticipate the claim 1.
However, since Marhoefer explicitly states “the steps of the flow diagrams may be taken in sequences other than those described, and more, fewer or other elements may be used in the block diagrams” (Col 17 lines 50- 59), the flow diagram’s sequence of Marhoefer can be altered to arrive at the claimed invention. Simply put, even if Marhoefer may or may not anticipate the claim 1; nevertheless, it renders invention of the claim obvious to PHOSITA. The claim 1 is unpatentable over Marhoefer.
Regarding claim 2, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 1, wherein: a plurality of the electric power supply parts are provided; and the planning part creates a plan regarding the electric power to be distributed [from items 240-246 to the electrolyzer 248] from the plurality of the electric power supply parts to the plurality of electric power gas conversion parts, as the electric power distribution plan (Fig. 2 & associated texts, claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 1, wherein: the information acquisition part acquires gas electric power reconversion information [information about fuel cell 128 to the electric control and conversion 104 shown in Tables 1 & 3] regarding a gas electric power reconversion part which reconverts the gas [using of the hydrogen from the storage 110 to the fuel cell 128] produced in the electric power gas conversion part to electric power, as the information; and the planning part creates a plan regarding the gas to be distributed from the electric power gas conversion part to the gas demand part and the gas electric power reconversion part, as the gas distribution plan (Figs. 1- 2 & associated texts).
Regarding claim 4, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 3, wherein: the information acquisition part acquires power demand information regarding a plurality of electric power demand parts which are supplied with the electric power reconverted [from solar 100 to the hydrogen stored in storage 110 and using the hydrogen of the storage 110 to the fuel cell 128 to produce power to be provided to the electric control and conversion 104] in the gas electric power reconversion part, as the information; and the planning part creates a reconverted electric power distribution plan regarding the electric power to be distributed from the gas electric power reconversion part to the plurality of electric power demand parts [appliances of the home that user power] so that the evaluation value becomes an optimum value [“goal of minimizing the total cost of energy,”] (Figs. 1- 2 & associated texts; Col 16, lines 60-68).
Regarding claim 5, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 1,wherein the evaluation value includes an evaluation value regarding a cost [“goal of minimizing the total cost of energy,”] (Col 16 lines 60-68).
Regarding claim 6, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation value includes an evaluation value regarding an influence [“may then represent the goal of minimizing the total cost of electric and thermal energy to a building”] on an environment (Col 4 lines 5- 10)
Regarding claim 8, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 1, wherein the information acquired by the information acquisition part includes virtual data [user entered data/inputs to the optimizer from the user interface] (Col 4 lines 46- 50; Col 12 lines 47-60; Col 14 lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 9, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 2, wherein: the information acquisition part acquires gas electric power reconversion information [data input about fuel cell 128 provided to the optimizer] regarding a gas electric power reconversion part which reconverts the gas produced in the electric power gas conversion part to electric power, as the information; and the planning part creates a plan regarding the gas to be distributed from the electric power gas conversion part to the gas demand part and the gas electric power reconversion part, as the gas distribution plan (Figs. 1- 2 & associated texts; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 9, wherein: the information acquisition part acquires power demand information [electricity production requirements (1) of fig.2 for the appliances of the house] regarding a plurality of electric power demand parts which are supplied with the electric power reconverted [the fuel cell 128 using fuel of storage hydrogen storage 110 to generate power again to be provided to the item 104] in the gas electric power reconversion part, as the information; and the planning part creates a reconverted electric power distribution plan regarding the electric power to be distributed from the gas electric power reconversion part to the plurality of electric power demand parts so that evaluation value becomes an optimum value [minimizes the cost] (Figs. 1- 2 & associated texts; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 2, wherein the evaluation value includes an evaluation value regarding a cost (Col. 10 lines 58- 65: “Z is the goal of minimizing the total cost of electricity and thermal energy to a building within the context of creating and maintaining a supply of hydrogen”).
Regarding claim 12, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 2, wherein the evaluation value includes an evaluation value regarding an influence on an environment (Col. 10 lines 58- 65: “Z is the goal of minimizing the total cost of electricity and thermal energy to a building within the context of creating and maintaining a supply of hydrogen”).
Regarding claim 14, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 2, wherein the information acquired by the information acquisition part includes virtual data [inputs provided to the optimizer, “The user interface preferably has inputs from the major components of the optimization scheme”] (Col 13 lines 1- 5; Col 14 lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 15, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 3, wherein the evaluation value includes an evaluation value [“goal of minimizing the energy cost”] regarding a cost (Col 16 lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 16, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 3, wherein the evaluation value includes an evaluation value regarding an influence on an environment (Col. 10 lines 58- 65).
Regarding claim 18, Marhoefer teaches/suggests the energy management system according to claim 3, wherein the information acquired by the information acquisition part includes virtual data [“user interface preferably has inputs from the major components of the optimization scheme”] (Col 14 lines 35- 39).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ohlsson (US 20210390498 A1) teaches planning part creates the plans for a plan target period including a period that is in a future [“forward looking what-if simulations for period in the future,”] from a creation time of the plans and a period that is in a past [“simulation module 120 to run what-if simulations for a period in the past”] from the creation time of the plans ([0113]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Please note that the claimed “energy management system” (like item 1 of applicant’s figs.1- 2) requires only information acquisition part 11 and planning part 14. However, power supply parts 140, electric power gas conversion parts 21s, and gas demand parts 30s are not structural parts having patentable weight for the claimed “energy management system”. These parts are parts (like items 10s, 21s, 30s) worked upon by the claimed management system 1.