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 05/11/2026.
Claims 1-7 and 21-25 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 23-25 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/11/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on a newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication No. 2015/0170171 to Drake et al., (hereinafter Drake), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0356782 to ElBsat et al., (hereinafter Elbsat), and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0248118 to Li et al., (hereinafter Li)
Regarding claim 1, Drake teaches a building automation system for controlling electrical loads on a power grid from a load facility using demand response (Demand signal response in relation to a home facility building system with loads supplied by a utility, see p17, Abs., Fig. 1, 28, Drake), 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 set-points, thresholds, operating instructions, priorities, opting-out, etc., see P18-19, p22, p27, 29-30, Drake);
and a controller (A controller for home energy management and communications with utility, see P18-19, Drake);
wherein the controller is configured to: receive a request of a demand response event (demand signal event received as a request for limiting energy consumption, see P22, Drake), obtain a plurality of current conditions via a user interface (Current conditions such as pricing data, load adjustment data, updated (current) user settings can be obtained and adjusted from a user see p21, p29, p30, Drake), automatically participate in or opt out of the demand response event based on the current conditions and the predetermined conditions (Ability to automatically to opt-out or automatically respond (opt-in) to demand signal event based on user programmed conditions and user provided current condition adjustments, see p27-30, p21, Drake),
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 to utility operating demand signal request event, see p27, P22, Drake).
Drake does not explicitly teach obtain configurable scenarios via a user interface for participating in a demand response event, control the user interface to display and compare outcomes of the configurable scenarios under current conditions.
However, Elbsat, from the same or similar field of demand response, teaches obtain configurable scenarios via a user interface for participating in a demand response event (User interface in a demand response control system that can include demand response planning (i.e. scenarios) for participating in a demand response event period, where a user can configure parameters (i.e. current input conditions) that can include utility rate (pricing), planned loads, etc., thus configurable scenarios are obtained, see p210-213, p203, P4, p201, p62, P2-5, p192-94, 403-404, 419, Elbsat), control the user interface to display outcomes of the configurable scenarios under current conditions (User interface in a demand response control system that can include demand response planning reporting (outcomes), see p210-213, p201, 203, p192-94, 403-404, 419, P2-5, 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 Drake 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).
Drake does not explicitly teach compare outcomes of scenarios.
However, Li, from the same or similar field of demand response, teaches compare outcomes of scenarios (Different demand response strategies are considered and their modeled outcomes are compared and provided to a user, see p122-123, p5, p8-9, p109, Li).
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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating comparison of outcomes, as taught by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better inform a user on the effects of different demand response strategies so as to permit a user to discern which strategies can yield lower energy costs and usage, if desired (see p123, 122, p5, p8-9, p109, Li).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake further discloses wherein the predetermined conditions include a first threshold (A decision condition includes a threshold, see p30, Drake), the current conditions include a first condition (A current condition can include a condition of a temperature setpoint, see p31, Drake), 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 can occur when a demand event would leave a load setpoint, such as a temperature setpoint, at less than or equal to a specified temperature setpoint, see p31, Drake)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Elbsat further 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 the combination that includes Drake 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).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Elbsat further teaches wherein outcomes of a configurable scenarios include trend data and performance indicators for participating in a demand response event under current conditions (Demand response planning (scenarios) with user set parameters (current conditions), that provide simulation and performance indicator reporting, see p481, p61-62, p210-213, p201, 203, p192-94, 403-404, 419, P2-5, 50-51, 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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating trend data and performance indicators related to demand response participation, as taught by Elbsat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better inform a user of demand response results by assessing planned demand response under user parameter conditions by considering provided performance indicators and trends, as suggested by Elbsat (see p210-213, p201, 203, p192-94, 403-404, 419, Elbsat).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Elbsat further teaches wherein a controller is further configured to: schedule participating in or opting out of a demand response event for a predetermined schedule in advance of an actual demand (A participation control can schedule through settings, participation in demand response ahead of time, see p418, 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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating ahead of time scheduling, as taught by Elbsat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better permit commitment to demand response so as to meet demand response cooperation with a power supplier for benefit of the power system (see p418, p2-4, Elbsat).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake, in view of Elbsat, in further view of Li, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0170171 to McCurnin et al., (hereinafter McCurnin)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake further teaches a controller is further configured to: automatically opt out of a demand response event when a first condition is greater than a first threshold (A decision to automatically opt-out of a demand event can occur when a demand event would affect a setpoint, such as a temperature setpoint, to be greater than a specified temperature setpoint, see p31, Drake)
Drake does not explicitly teach wherein a memory is further configured to store an opt-out counter and an opt-out threshold, opt out of a demand response event when an opt-out counter is equal to or less than the opt-out threshold; and increase the opt-out counter;
However, McCurnin from the same or similar field of demand response and participation, teaches wherein a memory is further configured to store an opt-out counter and 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, thus the system maintains a count of a number of user opt-outs and the allotted amount threshold after which opt-ins are required, see P77, p71, McCurnin), opt out of a demand response event when an opt-out counter is equal to or less than the opt-out threshold (A user is allowed to opt-out of a demand response event while the number of opt-out is less than a specified amount, see P77, p71, McCurnin); and increase the opt-out counter (A number of allowed opt-outs is maintained, after which a user is permanently opted-in, which has the implication of an opt-out counter being increased on opt-out determinations, see P77, p71, 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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating opt-out threshold and counter, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake, in view of Elbsat, in further view of Li, in further view of McCurnin, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0019032 to Koch et al., (hereinafter Koch)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, Li, and McCurnin teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake further teaches wherein a controller is further configured to: automatically participate in a demand response event (A decision to automatically opt-out of a demand event, see Abs., p31, Drake);
McCurnin further 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 the combination that includes Drake 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).
Drake does not explicitly teach control a set of electrical loads for load shedding, and notify a operator with an alert.
However, Koch from the same or similar field of demand response and participation, teaches control a set of electrical loads for load shedding, and notify a operator with an alert (Demand response prompts load shed, and a demand response request operator can be alerted by notification, see P40, P79, Koch).
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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating shedding and an alert, as taught by Koch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better minimize stress on a utility by reducing an amount of load of a consumer drawing from a utility, and to better inform a utility of decisions made by a customer as to whether they will cooperate or not with a utility by reducing load when requested (see P40, P79, 47, 73, Koch).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake, in view of Elbsat, in further view of Li, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2016/0055433 to Koch et al., (hereinafter Koch ‘433)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake does not explicitly teach a predetermined schedule, a controller is further configured to: automatically participate in a demand response event when a current schedule satisfies the predetermined schedule.
However, Koch ‘433, from the same or similar field of demand response and participation, teaches a predetermined schedule, a controller is further configured to: automatically participate in a demand response event when a current schedule satisfies the predetermined schedule (Participation in demand response can be contingent on schedule constraints, see p37, p44, Koch ‘433).
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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating schedule based participation, as taught by Koch ‘433.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better accommodate times when a user has established when they can or would not reduce consumption so as to respect a user desire times of demand response participation (see p37, p44, Koch ‘433).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake does not explicitly teach a predetermined schedule, a controller is further configured to: automatically opt out of a demand response event when a current schedule satisfies the predetermined schedule.
However, Koch ‘433, from the same or similar field of demand response and participation, teaches a predetermined schedule, a controller is further configured to: automatically opt out of a demand response event when a current schedule satisfies the predetermined schedule (Participation in demand response can be contingent on schedule constraints, see p37, p44, Koch ‘433).
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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating schedule based participation, as taught by Koch ‘433.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better accommodate times when a user has established when they can or would not reduce consumption so as to respect a user desire times of demand response participation (see p37, p44, Koch ‘433).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake, in view of Elbsat, in further view of Li, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2011/0251731 to Yang et al., (hereinafter Yang)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake further discloses wherein a memory is further configured to store a priority level for each electrical load (Priority level for resources, see p20, p19, Drake); 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 by energy consumption reduction, see p29-30, p22, p24, Drake).
Drake does not explicit teach 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 the combination that includes Drake 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 Drake, in view of Elbsat, in further view of Li, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2023/0296277 to Brahme et al., (hereinafter Brahme)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake 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 the combination that includes Drake 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake, in view of Elbsat, in further view of Li, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2019/0346871 to Lavrisiuk et al., (hereinafter Lavrisiuk)
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Drake, Elbsat, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Drake does not explicitly teach wherein a controller is further configured to: obtain limits applied to a configurable scenario for participating in a demand response event under current conditions, during participating in a demand response event, control a first set of resources when the limits are not exceeded, and release the first set of resources from participating in the demand response event and control a second set of resources for participating in the demand response event when the limits are exceeded.
However, Lavrisiuk from the same or similar field of demand response, teaches obtain limits applied to a configurable scenario for participating in a demand response event under current conditions, during participating in a demand response event, control a first set of resources when the limits are not exceeded, and release the first set of resources from participating in the demand response event and control a second set of resources for participating in the demand response event when the limits are exceeded (Time limits for a demand response scenario with current conditions of rolling load groups, where a first group participates in demand response until a time interval is exceeded (i.e. released) and a second group is controlled to participate, see p62, Lavrisiuk).
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 the combination that includes Drake and incorporating a limits that affect participation of varied resources during demand response, as taught by Lavrisiuk.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a strategy to reduce load consumption that spreads the effects of curtailment so as to not impact a few resources for an extended period that would make them unavailable for longer time otherwise (see p62, Lavrisiuk).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taylor, US. Patent Publication No. 2012/0022709 teaches a demand response system that permits a user to opt-out of demand response through use of an interface, and where a utility can set a number of opt-out or deny opt-outs.
Takagi et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2012/0109394 teaches demand response conditions of a household management system where a user can approve demand response schedules and provide priority to appliances.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights