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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 01/21/2026.
Claims 1-7, 21, and 22 are pending.
Claims 8-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 07/05/2023 and 12/11/2024.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. 2022/0224114 to McKeeever et al., (hereinafter McKeever).
Regarding claim 1, McKeever discloses a building automation system for controlling electrical loads on a power grid from a load facility using demand response (Demand response in relation to a facility building system with loads on a power grid, see P28-29, p5, McKeever), the system comprising:
a memory configured to store a plurality of predetermined conditions (Memory storing programmed code for decision conditions analysis (i.e., predetermined conditions), such as for opting-in, opting out, etc., see p84, p7, Figs. 8A-D, McKeever);
and a controller (Facility demand response participation and load control, thus a controller, see p31, p1, p11, p64, p33, McKeever);
wherein the controller is configured to: receive a request of a demand response event (demand response event received, see p64, Fig. 5 #502, Fig. 8A, McKeever), determine a plurality of current conditions (Current conditions such as occupancy, resource availability, load usage, weather, etc., see Fig. 5, Fig. 8A, McKeever), automatically participate in or opt out of the demand response event based on the current conditions and the predetermined conditions (Automatic participation decision , see p66, Fig. 5 #520, Figs. 8A-D, p6, McKeever),
and notify an operator responsible for the demand response event at least when the demand response event is opted out (Automatic notification at least in an opt-out decision, see p64, Fig. 8A, Fig. 7E, Figs. 8A-D, McKeever).
Regarding claim 2, McKeever discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever further discloses wherein the predetermined conditions include a first threshold (A decision condition includes a comparison with a stored scheduled amount of resource availability for shed (i.e. a threshold), see Fig. 5 #514, p70, McKeever), the current conditions include a first condition (A current condition includes a condition of demand response load shed amount, see Fig. 5 #514, p70, McKeever), the controller is further configured to: automatically participate in the demand response event when the first condition is equal to or less than the first threshold, and control a set of electrical loads for load shedding (A decision to automatically participate occurs when a current demand response load shed amount is less than a resource availability amount, and load shedding is controlled, see Fig. 5 #520, p70, p72, McKeever)
Regarding claim 3, McKeever discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever further teaches wherein the memory is further configured to store an opt-out counter and an opt-out threshold (An allotted number of opt-outs constitutes a threshold with implication of an opt-out counter, see P65, P89, McKeever), the controller is further configured to: automatically opt out of the demand response event when the first condition is greater than the first threshold and when the opt-out counter is equal to or less than the opt-out threshold (A decision to not participate when a current demand response load shed amount is greater than a resource availability amount, and while a number opt-outs is still not at a certain allotted amount, see Fig. 5 #518, p71, p70, p65, McKeever); and increase the opt-out counter (A number of previous opt-outs is maintained, which has the implication of an opt-out counter being increased on opt-out determinations, see P65, p88, P89, McKeever).
Regarding claim 5, McKeever discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever further discloses wherein the memory is further configured to store a predetermined schedule, the controller is further configured to: automatically participate in the demand response event when a current schedule satisfies the predetermined schedule (A decision to automatically participate occurs when a current scheduled demand response load shed satisfies a stored scheduled resource availability amount for load shed, in the sense that the resources available for shed are sufficient at a specified schedule, see p70, p72, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, McKeever)
Regarding claim 6, McKeever discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever further discloses wherein the memory is further configured to store a predetermined schedule, the controller is further configured to: automatically opt out of the demand response event when a current schedule satisfies the predetermined schedule (A decision to automatically opt-out participate occurs when a current scheduled demand response load shed satisfies a stored scheduled resource availability amount for load shed, in the sense that the resources available for shed are insufficient at a specified schedule, see p70, p71, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, McKeever)
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeever, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0170171 to McCurnin et al., (hereinafter McCurnin)
Regarding claim 4, McKeever teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever further teaches wherein a controller is further configured to: automatically participate in a demand response event, control a set of electrical loads for load shedding, and notify a operator with an alert (Automatic determination of demand response participation that includes load shedding, and notification of an operator, see Fig. 5, Fig. 8, Figs., McKeever); when an opt-out counter is greater than an opt-out threshold (An allotted number of opt-outs constitutes a threshold with implication of an opt-out counter, see P65, P89, Figs., McKeever)
McKeever does not explicitly teach participate in a demand response event when an opt-out counter is greater than an opt-out threshold.
However, McCurnin from the same or similar field of demand response and participation, teaches participate in a demand response event when an opt-out counter is greater than an opt-out threshold (After a specified number of opt-outs (i.e. when an opt-out counter is greater than a threshold), participation is opted-in, see P77, McCurnin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control and demand response as described by McKeever and incorporating participation in demand response after a threshold number of opt-outs, as taught by McCurnin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better compel users of a system to participate in mitigation efforts so as to balance participation when certain users may be inclined to continually not participate, as suggested by McCurnin (see P77, McCurnin).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeever, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2011/0251731 to Yang et al., (hereinafter Yang)
Regarding claim 7, McKeever teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever further discloses wherein a memory is further configured to store a priority level for each electrical load (Priority level for resources, see p54, McKeever), a controller is further configured to: determine a set of electrical loads based on a power requirement of the demand response event (Loads are determined based on a demand response requirement to reduce power, see Fig. 5, Fig. 8, McKeever); and control a determined set of electrical loads for load shedding when a demand response event is participated in (Loads are shed based on opting-in to demand response participation, see Fig. 5, Fig. 8, McKeever).
Although implied by paragraph 54 of McKeever, McKeever is not explicit on determine a set of electrical loads based on a power requirement of a demand response event, a power requirement of each electrical load, and a priority level for each electrical load.
However, Yang from the same or similar field of demand response, more explicitly teaches determine a set of electrical loads based on a power requirement of a demand response event, a power requirement of each electrical load, and a priority level for each electrical load (Electrical appliance loads are determined for power limitation based on demand response requirement to limit power, priorities of each load and the power operation of each appliance, see p17, p10, p12, P67, 59, p8, Yang).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control and demand response as described by McKeever and incorporating priority in demand response participation, as taught by Yang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider the determined importance/quality of specified electric loads so as to not negatively impact the performance of more valued loads over lower priority devices in demand response power limiting situations, as suggested by Yang (see p8, p17, p10, p12, P67, 59, p8, Yang).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeever, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2023/0296277 to Brahme et al., (hereinafter Brahme)
Regarding claim 21, McKeever teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever does not explicitly teach wherein as a temperature or humidity rises above an operator-defined threshold in a space, a controller is configured to release a temporary action on an active setpoint and take a different action to reduce energy, to allow a system to regain control of space conditions while maximizing an overall reduction of energy usage.
However, Brahme from the same or similar field of demand response, teaches wherein as a temperature or humidity rises above an operator-defined threshold in a space, a controller is configured to release a temporary action on an active setpoint and take a different action to reduce energy, to allow a system to regain control of space conditions while maximizing an overall reduction of energy usage (A temperature rises above a user defined threshold, such as a baseline, in a demand response situation, which prompts a temporary action of setpoint to an offset setpoint (“release”), and different actions with respect to compressor so at to reduce energy while allowing to meet space comfort control while energy is reduced overall in energy demand response, see p43, Fig. 3, p4, p22, Brahme).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control and demand response as described by McKeever and incorporating a different action to reduce energy, as taught by Brahme.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better maintain occupant comfort using an environmental control system, while reducing energy during demand response situations, as suggested by Yang (see p4, p43, Fig. 3, p22, Brahme).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKeever, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0356782 to ElBsat et al., (hereinafter Elbsat)
Regarding claim 22, McKeever teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
McKeever does not explicitly teach further comprising: a display device, wherein the display device is configured to display predetermined strategies and conditional information, and to display an overall impact including performance indicators of selected strategies under the conditional information.
However, Elbsat from the same or similar field of demand response, teaches a display device, wherein the display device is configured to display predetermined strategies and conditional information, and to display an overall impact including performance indicators of selected strategies under the conditional information (User interface in a demand response control system that can include demand response planning (predetermined strategies), user set parameters (conditions), simulation and performance indicator reporting, see p210-213, p201, 203, p192-94, 403-404, 419, Elbsat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control and demand response as described by McKeever and incorporating display of strategies and performance impact as taught by Elbsat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better asses planned demand response under user parameter conditions by considering provided performance indicators, as suggested by Elbsat (see p210-213, p201, 203, p192-94, 403-404, 419, Elbsat).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drake et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2012/0053746 teaches a device reporting opt-out autonomously based on user settings .
Strelec et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2015/0025698 teaches demand response automated load characterization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117