DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: “executing an optimization algorithm configured to determine a mitigated maximum power exchange value in the timeseries using data defining one or more peak shaving capabilities at the facility as variables”. The “optimization algorithm” falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional element of “receiving a timeseries…” and “outputting the… value”. These additional elements represent mere data gathering and data outputting that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites: “a computer-implemented method”. The computer is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Sheehan et al. US 2019/0115753 (hereinafter Sheehan).
Regarding claim 1, Sheehan teaches: a computer-implemented method for determining a mitigated peak power exchange value for power exchange between a supplier and a facility, the method comprising:
receiving a timeseries comprising power exchange values for power exchange between the supplier and the facility over a predetermined time period ([0013] - - time series data includes energy consumption values);
executing an optimization algorithm configured to determine a mitigated maximum power exchange value in the timeseries using data defining one or more peak shaving capabilities at the facility as variables ([0014] - - determine an optimized power cap using an optimization algorithm); and
outputting the determined mitigated maximum power exchange value ([0014] - - control an energy storage device based on the optimized power cap; thus the optimized power cap is outputted).
Regarding claim 2, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sheehan further teaches: the received timeseries is one of a plurality of timeseries defining a distribution of power exchange scenarios at the facility ([0068] - - a number of scenarios are constructed by sampling the load forecast error distribution), and wherein executing the optimization algorithm comprises performing robust optimization using the plurality of timeseries as input ([0064] - - stochastic optimization algorithm is a robust optimization).
Regarding claim 3, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sheehan further teaches: performing robust optimization comprises performing worst case robust optimization to mitigate the maximum power exchange value among all of the power exchange scenarios ([0051] - - not enforce power cap in the off-peak and part-peak regimes; only enforcing power cap at the peak regime; the peak regime is worst case).
Regarding claim 4, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sheehan further teaches: performing robust optimization comprises mitigating the maximum power exchange value among a predetermined proportion of the power exchange scenarios ([0051] - - not enforce power cap in the off-peak and part-peak regimes; only enforcing power cap at the peak regime; the peak regime has the maximum power exchange; [0040], [0041] - - using optimization algorithm to determine an optimized power cap a TOU period).
Regarding claim 7, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sheehan further teaches: performing robust optimization comprises performing scenario tree online optimization using the plurality of timeseries as input ([0068] - - utilizing multiple simulations to find a policy that accounts for this highly variable behavior; using multiple simulations (e.g. either 0 or 50kW) is performing scenario tree).
Regarding claim 8, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sheehan further teaches: the received timeseries comprises at least first and second subsets of power exchange values within the predetermined time period, and wherein executing the optimization algorithm comprises determining a said mitigated maximum power exchange value in each of the subsets ([0068] - - utilizing multiple simulations to find a policy that accounts for this highly variable behavior; the wind farm generation is either 0 or 50kW are two different subsets).
Regarding claim 10, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sheehan further teaches: the power exchange relates to power intake or to power infeed, wherein the maximum power exchange value is a maximum power intake value or a maximum power infeed value, respectively, and wherein the optimization algorithm is configured to determine a mitigated maximum power intake value or a mitigated maximum power infeed value, respectively (Fig. 1 - - peak demand of utility power draw is a maximum power intake value).
Regarding claim 11, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sheehan further teaches: obtaining from the optimization algorithm data defining a power management solution for operating the peak shaving capabilities of the facility so as to maintain power exchange values for power exchange between the supplier and the facility at or below the mitigated maximum power exchange value; and operating the one or more peak shaving capabilities of the facility according to the power management solution ([0014] - - control the energy storage device based on the optimized power cap).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehan et al. US 2019/0115753 (hereinafter Sheehan) in view of Hooshmand et al. US 2014/0058571 (hereinafter Hooshmand).
Regarding claim 9, Sheehan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Sheehan does not explicitly teach: using a cost function in relation to the one or more capabilities of the peak shaving system to determine a tradeoff between mitigation of the maximum power exchange value and capability cost.
However, Hooshmand teaches: using a cost function in relation to the one or more capabilities of the peak shaving system to determine a tradeoff between mitigation of the maximum power exchange value and capability cost ([0022] - - objective function relates to the grid power cost and battery usage cost; grid power cost mitigation of max power exchange value; battery usage cost is capability cost).
Sheehan and Hooshmand are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Sheehan, and incorporating a cost function, as taught by Turney.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide multi-objective energy management, as suggested by Hooshmand ([0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116