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 Objections
The following claims are objected to:
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 14 discloses “a power subsystem.” Claim 1, lines 17 and 21-22 discloses “the power sub-system.” The limitations appear to be a different spelling of the same limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 15 discloses “a hydrogen subsystem.” Claim 1, lines 18 and 21-22 discloses “the hydrogen sub-system.” The limitations appear to be a different spelling of the same limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 15 discloses “a power subsystem.” Claim 10, lines 18 and 22-23 discloses “the power sub-system.” The limitations appear to be a different spelling of the same limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 16 discloses “a hydrogen subsystem.” Claim 10, lines 19 and 22-23 discloses “the hydrogen sub-system.” The limitations appear to be a different spelling of the same limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19, line 16 discloses “a power subsystem.” Claim 19, lines 22 and 26-27 discloses “a power sub-system.” The limitations appear to be a different spelling of the same limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19, line 17 discloses “a hydrogen subsystem.” Claim 19, lines 20 and 23-24 discloses “a hydrogen sub-system.” The limitations appear to be a different spelling of the same limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19, line 1 disclose “A non-transitory computer computer-readable storage medium.” Only one computer limitation is required, wherein the first “computer” limitation appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 14-19 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 10, directed to a system, comprises a fuel cell facility, a P2H production facility, which are configured to couple a power system and a hydrogen energy system, and also including a controller. Claim 10, lines 20-22 disclose “storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in a blockchain smart contract, exchanging the blockchain smart contract for multiple rounds.” A blockchain is a decentralized ledger requiring internet communication to accomplish the task of hashing blocks of a chain, wherein a majority of clients must agree/validate the blockchain smart contract transaction in a decentralized manner. Claim 10 includes a use of the components cited above, but lacks the required transmission capabilities; e.g., an internet connection, to perform this function. Therefore it is unclear how the blockchain smart contract is exchanged, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, an internet connection is necessary. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 11-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 10.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 19, lines 21-23 disclose “storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the blockchain smart contract, exchanging the blockchain smart contract for multiple rounds.” A blockchain is a decentralized ledger requiring internet communication to accomplish the task of hashing blocks of a chain, wherein a majority of clients must agree/validate the blockchain smart contract transaction in a decentralized manner. Claim 19 includes the use of a memory, processor, and program instruction, and does not disclose the use of an internet capability for performing this function. It is therefore unclear how a smart contract may be exchanged for multiple rounds, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. For the purposes of the present examination, an internet connection is necessary. However, further clarification is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 and 13 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A method for coordinated control of an electro-hydrogen integrated system based on a blockchain smart contract, comprising:
constructing a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system having a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility, wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by:
PNG
media_image1.png
53
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where
PNG
media_image2.png
20
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents a set of measurement moments,
Φ
G
represents a set of generator units,
PNG
media_image3.png
20
27
media_image3.png
Greyscale
represents a set of hydrogen sources;
PNG
media_image4.png
27
25
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
27
25
media_image6.png
Greyscale
represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
at a t moment; and
PNG
media_image8.png
27
24
media_image8.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
producing electricity at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment,
PNG
media_image10.png
27
23
media_image10.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
producing hydrogen at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment;
introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model;
decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model of a power subsystem and a second clearing model of a hydrogen subsystem based on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables of the power sub-system, and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables of the hydrogen sub-system;
storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the blockchain smart contract, exchanging the blockchain smart contract for multiple rounds through the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system and adjusting strategies of the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model; and
controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system based on the optimal solution to provide a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses constructing a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system, wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by:
PNG
media_image1.png
53
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where
PNG
media_image2.png
20
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents a set of measurement moments,
Φ
G
represents a set of generator units,
PNG
media_image3.png
20
27
media_image3.png
Greyscale
represents a set of hydrogen sources;
PNG
media_image4.png
27
25
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
27
25
media_image6.png
Greyscale
represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
at a t moment; and
PNG
media_image8.png
27
24
media_image8.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
producing electricity at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment,
PNG
media_image10.png
27
23
media_image10.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
producing hydrogen at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical calculation; decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model and a second clearing model on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables; construed a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the contract; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; exchanging the contract for multiple rounds and adjusting strategies to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
blockchain smart [contract]
blockchain smart [contract]
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system based on the optimal solution to provide a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. In this instance, the broadest reasonable interpretation of controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system includes indicating by an alarm or outputting a warning/message, which is construed as insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
having a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility,
of a power subsystem
of a hydrogen subsystem
of the power sub-system,
of the hydrogen sub-system;
through the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system and
of the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 13 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 10-12 and 14-18 are directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 10 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
An electro-hydrogen integrated system, comprising:
a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility, configured to couple a power system and a hydrogen energy system; and
a controller, configured to:
construct a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system, wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by:
PNG
media_image1.png
53
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where
PNG
media_image2.png
20
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents a set of measurement moments,
Φ
G
represents a set of generator units,
PNG
media_image3.png
20
27
media_image3.png
Greyscale
represents a set of hydrogen sources;
PNG
media_image4.png
27
25
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
27
25
media_image6.png
Greyscale
represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
at a t moment; and
PNG
media_image8.png
27
24
media_image8.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
producing electricity at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment,
PNG
media_image10.png
27
23
media_image10.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
producing hydrogen at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment;
introduce Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model;
decompose the clearing model into a first clearing model of a power subsystem and a second clearing model of a hydrogen subsystem based on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables of the power sub-system, and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables of the hydrogen sub-system;
storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in a blockchain smart contract, exchanging the blockchain smart contract for multiple rounds through the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system and adjusting strategies of the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model; and
control the fuel cell facility and the P2H production facility based on the optimal solution to provide a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts/mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 10 discloses construct a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system, wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by:
PNG
media_image1.png
53
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where
PNG
media_image2.png
20
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents a set of measurement moments,
Φ
G
represents a set of generator units,
PNG
media_image3.png
20
27
media_image3.png
Greyscale
represents a set of hydrogen sources;
PNG
media_image4.png
27
25
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
27
25
media_image6.png
Greyscale
represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
at a t moment; and
PNG
media_image8.png
27
24
media_image8.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
producing electricity at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment,
PNG
media_image10.png
27
23
media_image10.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
producing hydrogen at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; introduce Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model; construed as a mathematical concept and/or mental step; e.g., a mathematical calculation and/or performable by pen and paper; decompose the clearing model into a first clearing model and a second clearing model based on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in a contract; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; exchanging the contract for multiple rounds and adjusting strategies to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model; construed a mental step; e.g., human observation and/or performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 10 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 10 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 10 further recites:
a controller, configured to:
blockchain smart [contract]
blockchain smart [contract]
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 10 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
control the fuel facility and the P2H production facility based on the optimal solution to provide a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 10 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). In this instance, the broadest reasonable interpretation of controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system includes indicating by an alarm or outputting a warning/message, which is construed as insignificant post-solution activity. Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility, configured to couple a power system and a hydrogen energy system; and
of a power subsystem
of a hydrogen subsystem
of the power sub-system
of the hydrogen sub-system
through the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system
of the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system
Analyzing this additional element of claim 10 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 10 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 11-12 and 14-18 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 10 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 19 is directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 19 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A non-transitory computer computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, a method for coordinated control of an electro-hydrogen integrated system based on a blockchain smart contract is implemented, the method comprising:
constructing a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system having a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility, wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by:
PNG
media_image1.png
53
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where
PNG
media_image2.png
20
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents a set of measurement moments,
Φ
G
represents a set of generator units,
PNG
media_image3.png
20
27
media_image3.png
Greyscale
represents a set of hydrogen sources;
PNG
media_image4.png
27
25
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
27
25
media_image6.png
Greyscale
represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
at a t moment; and
PNG
media_image8.png
27
24
media_image8.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
producing electricity at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment,
PNG
media_image10.png
27
23
media_image10.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
producing hydrogen at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment;
introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model;
decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model of a power subsystem and a second clearing model of a hydrogen subsystem based on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables of the power sub-system, and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables of the hydrogen sub-system;
storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the blockchain smart contract, exchanging the blockchain smart contract for multiple rounds through the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system and adjusting strategies of the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model; and
controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system based on the optimal solution to provide a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount.
has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 19 discloses constructing a clearing model wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by:
PNG
media_image1.png
53
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where
PNG
media_image2.png
20
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents a set of measurement moments,
Φ
G
represents a set of generator units,
PNG
media_image3.png
20
27
media_image3.png
Greyscale
represents a set of hydrogen sources;
PNG
media_image4.png
27
25
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
27
25
media_image6.png
Greyscale
represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
at a t moment; and
PNG
media_image8.png
27
24
media_image8.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit
PNG
media_image5.png
17
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
producing electricity at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment,
PNG
media_image10.png
27
23
media_image10.png
Greyscale
represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source
PNG
media_image7.png
19
13
media_image7.png
Greyscale
producing hydrogen at the
PNG
media_image9.png
16
9
media_image9.png
Greyscale
moment; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model; construed by the examiner as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable by pen and paper and/or a mathematical calculation; decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model and a second clearing model based on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the contract; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; exchanging the contract for multiple rounds and adjusting strategies to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model; and; construed as a mental step and or a mathematical concept; e.g., observation and/or a mathematical calculation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 19 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 19 further recites:
A non-transitory computer computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor
blockchain smart [contract]
blockchain smart [contract]
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system based on the optimal solution to provide a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). In this instance, the broadest reasonable interpretation of controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system includes indicating by an alarm or outputting a warning/message, which is construed as insignificant post-solution activity. Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
for the electro-hydrogen integrated system having a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility
of a power subsystem
of a hydrogen subsystem
of the power sub-system
of the hydrogen sub-system
through the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system
of the power sub-system and the hydrogen sub-system
Analyzing this additional element of claim 19 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, 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; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 19 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
EXAMINER COMMENT
An, Qi & Wang, Jianxiao & Mujeeb, Asad & Wu, Chen & Xue, Guiyuan & Li, Gengyin. (2022). Decentralized Coordination Strategy for Integrated Electricity-Hydrogen Market. 10.1109/CEEPE55110.2022.9783397, hereinafter An, is regarded as the closest relevant art to the invention of claims 1, 10, and 19. An discloses a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system; e.g., see pg. 683, cols. 1-2, an objective function of the clearing model with the appropriate representation of values; e.g., see eqn. 1 and pg. 683, col. 2; introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance/hydrogen energy balance constraint into the clearing mode; e.g., see pg. 683, col. 1 and 685, col. 2; decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model of a power subsystem and a second clearing model of a hydrogen subsystem; e.g., see pg. 683 col. 1 and pg. 685, cols. 1-2; storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the blockchain smart contract, changing, and adjusting; e.g., see pg. 686, col. 2. An, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest: use of a smart contract or blockchain, and also does not disclose controlling a system, taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. An is disqualified as prior art because the art falls under the exception of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A).
W. Gan et al., "Multi-Network Coordinated Hydrogen Supply Infrastructure Planning for the Integration of Hydrogen Vehicles and Renewable Energy," in IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 2875-2886, March-April 2022, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2021.3109558, hereinafter Gan, is regarded as applicable prior art to the invention of claim 1. Gan discloses performing market-clearing calculations with a model with is disclosed in eqns. 22-27. Gan further discloses us of a Lagrange multiplier; e.g., see pg. 5, col. 2. Gan, taken alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest: the specific objective function of the clearing model, a decomposition of the clearing model, storing Lagrange multipliers and controlling an electro-hydrogen integrated system, taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 11,575,511 B2 to Covaci et al. relates to a system for simplifying executable instructions for optimized verifiable computation.
US 10,984,433 B1 to Doner relates to a price optimization system.
US 2017/0285587 A1 to Fife relates to two-stage control systems and methods for economical optimization of an electrical system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights