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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner decided to maintain 112 and 101 rejection because applicant’s amendment to the claims did not overcome the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding 112 “More specifically, the term "unmeasured asset" is defined in Claims 1, 14, and 20 as "wherein the unmeasured asset is not directly measured for power performance information." This is supported by Paragraph [0085], which states "In the exemplary embodiments, asset measurement server 925 is in communication with one or more measured assets 110 and 115 and receives power performance information from the measured assets 110 and 115" and Paragraph [0025]”. Examiner respectfully disagree because it discloses “ DER systems include natural gas energy generation, as well as renewable energy technologies, such as solar electricity, biomass power, hydroelectric, and wind turbines are also common” but it does not define which are unmeasured asset.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejection:
In response to Applicant’s Argument, Section 101 defines patentable subject matter: “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception” that “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Applicant argues, Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts to include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea 'of itself,' and mathematical relationships/formulas. The claims at issue do not correspond to any of these categories.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the abstract idea exception has deep roots in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601-602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010) (citing Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 174–175 (1853)). To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts;
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity; and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to but not limited to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Therefore, arguments are moot. (Please see MPEP 2106.04(a).
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office has not identified the specific limitations considered or any rationale as to why these limitations are not enough to qualify as significantly more, examiner refers to language of Enfish for determining whether the additional elements such a “performing and determining” do not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 4-6, 14-17 and 20 recites the limitations “unmeasured asset” is not define by the specification. Specification defines the measured assets but it does not define unmeasured assets (paragraph 0025). Dependent claims did not clarify so dependent clams also rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 4-6, 14-17 and 20 recited the limitations “unmeasured asset”. Specification paragraph 0025 discloses measured assets but did not clarify or define “unmeasured asset”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a system comprising a computing device including a processor in communication with memory, of “store…”, “store…”, “receive…”, “compare……”, “determine……….” and “determine…” is a system, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “compare the first plurality of attribute data to the second plurality of attribute data and the plurality of constraints associated with the unmeasured asset”; “determine a measured asset of the plurality of measured assets to assign to the unmeasured asset based on the comparison” and “determine a performance forecast for the unmeasured asset based on a power performance of the determined measured asset”. These limitations - recite a mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation. Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “store a first plurality of attribute data for a plurality of measured assets attached to a grid, wherein each measured asset of the plurality of measured assets is monitored for power performance information”; “store a plurality of constraints for matching measured assets to unmeasured assets” and “receive a second plurality of attribute data for an unmeasured asset attached to the grid, store a plurality of constraints for matching measured assets to unmeasured assets; receive a second plurality of attribute data for an unmeasured asset attached to the grid, wherein the unmeasured asset is not directly measured for power performance information”.
The system with a computing device including a processor to store plurality of attribute data of measured assets, storing plurality of constraints matching measured assets to unmeasured assets and receiving second plurality of attribute data of an unmeasured assets 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation storing, matching, receiving data, determining, comparing and determining at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the system uses to perform matching, determining feasibility (evaluation), using the computer components as a tool (see 2106.04(d)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “processor, storing and receiving second plurality of attribute data” 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.
Storing, receiving data by the processor as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see USPGPUB 2015/0066231 and USPGPUB 2015/0073615) and see 2106.05.
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.
Independent claims 14 and 20 has similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim 2, recites the limitations “wherein the plurality of measured assets includes distributed energy resources including at least one of wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, biomass, or hydroelectric power generators”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 3, recites the limitations “wherein the first plurality of attribute data includes at least one of asset type, model, geolocation, power capacity, solar tilt angle, tilt azimuth, geospatial distance, child similarity threshold, windmill blade angle, or windmill height”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 4, recites the limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to assign the determined measured asset to the unmeasured asset when there is a match of all of the plurality of constraints for the unmeasured asset”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 5, recites the limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: determine a subset of measured assets that match all of the plurality of constraints for the unmeasured asset; and determine a distance between the unmeasured asset and each measured asset of the subset of measured assets; and select the measured asset of the subset of measured assets with the smallest distance to the unmeasured asset”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 6, recites the limitations “determine that no measured asset of the plurality of measured assets matches all of the plurality of constraints for the unmeasured asset; determine one or more violated constraints of the plurality of constraints for one or more of the plurality of measured assets; and select the measured asset based on a number of differences based on the corresponding one or more violated constraints”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 7, recites the limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to select the measured asset of the plurality of measured assets by relaxing a first constraint of the plurality of constraints”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 8, recites the limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to assign a scaling value to the power performance of the determined measured asset to determine the performance forecast”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 9, recites the limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to assign a hinge loss value to the power performance of the determined measured asset to determine the performance forecast, wherein the hinge loss value is based on one or more violations of the plurality of constraints for the determined managed asset”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 10, recites the limitations “wherein the hinge loss value is based on one or more weights associated with one or more violated constraints”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 11, recites the limitations “wherein the scaling value is based on a machine learning (ML) analysis of the plurality of measured assets, the first plurality of attribute data, and power performance of the plurality of measured assets”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 12, recites the limitations “wherein the plurality of measured assets are power generating assets”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 13, recites the limitations “wherein the plurality of measured assets are power loads”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 15, recites the limitations “further comprising assign the determined measured asset to the unmeasured asset when there is a match of all of the plurality of constraints for the unmeasured asset”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 16, recites the limitations “determining a subset of measured assets that match all of the plurality of constraints for the unmeasured asset; and determining a distance between the unmeasured asset and each measured asset of the subset of measured assets; and selecting the measured asset of the subset of measured assets with the smallest distance to the unmeasured asset”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 17, recites the limitations “determining that no measured asset of the plurality of measured assets matches all of the plurality of constraints for the unmeasured asset; determining one or more violated constraints of the plurality of constraints for one or more of the plurality of measured assets; and selecting the measured asset based on a number of differences based on the corresponding one or more violated constraints”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
Claim 18, recites the limitations “selecting the measured asset of the plurality of measured assets by relaxing a first constraint of the plurality of constraints”, is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g).
Claim 19, recites the limitations “assign a hinge loss value to the power performance of the determined measured asset to determine the performance forecast, wherein the hinge loss value is based on one or more violations of the plurality of constraints for the determined managed asset”. It’s a mathematical or mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.07(a) and 2106.04(a).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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.
Clifton USPGPUB 2015/0066231 teaches an energy storage and supply management system. The system may include one or more of a control unit, which is in communication with the power grid, and an energy storage unit that stores power for use at a later time. The system may be used with traditional utility provided power as well as locally generated solar, wind, and any other types of power generation technology. In some embodiments, the energy storage unit and the control unit are housed in the same chassis. In other embodiments, the energy storage unit and the control unit are separate. In another embodiment, the energy storage unit is integrated into the chassis of an appliance itself.
Forbes, JR. USPGPUB 2015/0073615 teaches a systems, methods, and apparatus embodiments for electric power grid and network registration and management of active grid elements. Grid elements are transformed into active grid elements following initial registration of each grid element with the system, preferably through network-based communication between the grid elements and a coordinator, either in coordination with or outside of an IP-based communications network router. A multiplicity of active grid elements function in the grid for supply capacity, supply and/or load curtailment as supply or capacity. Also preferably, messaging is managed through a network by a Coordinator using IP messaging for communication with the grid elements, with the energy management system (EMS), and with the utilities, market participants, and/or grid operators..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights