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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received 04/21/2026. Claim(s) 2 and 4-12 have been canceled. Claim(s) 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1 and 3 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 18378307 filed 10/10/2023 claims foreign priority to 10-2022- 3. 0146358, filed 11/04/2022 claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0105651, filed 08/11/2023
Applicant Name/Assignee: ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Inventor(s): Yoo, Yoon-Sik; Lee, II Woo;
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claim limitations communicates a generation price determined as a marginal price, which is a pricing mechanism derived from identifying power generation quantity and production cost required to produce additional energy. Applicant argues the claim limitations reflect technically grounded pricing determination not a commercial decision. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant does not point to any technological technique that imposes meaningful limits upon the generation of a price. Rather applicant’s argument focuses on the commercial data (pricing mechanism derived from identifying power generation quantity and production cost required to produce additional energy ) applied for the price determination. The identifying of energy/product quantity produced and its cost to produce is explicitly a commercial process. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the specification describes determining energy trading by adjusting the demand quantity according to received price generation and transmitting determined energy trade information to the market. Applicant argues that this constitutes a technical feedback loop within the trading system with the main grid and energy resource network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant has not explained how adjusting demand quantity according to prices generated and energy trade information improves the technical process of the grid or energy resource network from its ordinary capability or solves a problem rooted within the grid or network. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claim limitations transmit power generating quantity corresponding to energy quantity to be produced based on trade information so that the provider generates additional energy and supplies the energy to targeted customers. The provider physically controls the power generation quantity of the power plant to generate additional energy that is actually supplied to the target energy consumer at the time of the energy trading. Applicant argues this process constitutes a practical application of the underlying abstract idea. The calculated energy distribution results are used to physically control the output of a specific piece of equipment resulting in tangible energy production. The controlling of power generation quantity of the power plant and supplying the additional generated energy at time of trading is a particular technical process for concrete physically delivered energy. The amended limitations recite what is being controlled and how the power generation quantity transmitted to the energy provider is controlled (based on energy trade information) and when the result is delivered (at time of energy trading). Therefore, the limitations under step 2A prong 2, impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea by requiring physical actions of controlling power generation quantity of the power plant and supplying the additional energy at a specific trading time. The claimed energy trading process provide improvement to the functioning of the energy trading system itself. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Production of energy is merely the production of a product for consumer consumption. The controlling of the power generation and distribution based on trade information and the time of energy trading is not a process that focuses on the technical technique for energy production and distribution in order to improve the production process or improve the capability or capacity for the energy to be distributed as a technical process. Rather the limitations focus on the commercial aspect that trigger the production of the energy product in order to meet customer demands which is explicitly a commercial activity. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations arguing, that prior art references fail to teach “determining system marginal price” consumer needs to pay, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art reference Bain teaches in at least para 0328 wherein the prior art teaches calculating across multiple production types prices associated with each of the production times consumption amounts and prices including forward ahead pricing and use data; para 0330-0332 wherein the prior art teaches data include price data, tax/credit data, realtime pricing, energy cost data, services cost data, system operator cost data, transmission utility price data generation utility price data,
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations arguing, that prior art references fail to teach “energy provider generates additional energy by controlling the power generation quantity of the central power plant…supplies the generated additional energy to the target energy consumer at the time of energy trading”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Bain teaches in at least para 0006 production of energy for grid for given time period and energy prices by sources of production; para 0328 wherein the prior art teaches calculating across multiple production types prices associated with each of the production times consumption amounts and prices including forward ahead pricing and use data; para 0330-0332 wherein the prior art teaches data include price data, tax/credit data, realtime pricing, energy cost data, services cost data, system operator cost data, transmission utility price data generation utility price data. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant's amendments. Based on an updated search of the art, a new reference was used in the rejection below
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations arguing, that prior art references fail to teach all of the limitations “energy purchase quantity”, “greenhouse gas emission quantity, new and renewable energy generation rate of the target energy consumer”
Claim Interpretation
The amended limitations recite the language “time of energy trading”, the examiner is interpreting the term to be in light of the specification, the time when the energy is delivered as the energy distribution is determine per unit of time for each of the energy consumers.
The term “SMP” is defined by the specification as “market price, wherein the power generation price needs to be paid by the FECs (factory energy consumer) to purchase energy from the CEP (conventional energy provider)” (page 13 lines 16-18). Accordingly the SMP is the price the consumer pays the energy provider for energy.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to claims 1-3;
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps 1) receiving ESG data 2) receiving power generation data 3) identifying power generation quantity 4) determining power generation price 5) calculating energy distribution quantity for each consumer 6) transmitting determined generation price (7) receiving energy trade information (8) providing calculated energy distribution quantity. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Except for the recitation a processor to perform the operations “determining” and “calculating” nothing precludes the steps from being performed using mental processes. The allocation step is so broad as to encompass either mental or an operational process of distribution of allocated energy, as the limitation does not specify that the allocation is implemented or merely calculated. Simply reciting the use of a processor to perform the recited steps that can be performed entirely in the human mind does not remove the limitations from the abstract category of mental concepts.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving data which mimics mental processes of observation. The steps identifying quantity and determining price mimic mental processes of analysis. The calculating limitation is nothing but a mathematical calculation step based on selected information. The allocation step mimic mental process of decision based on calculated analysis. The court also has “treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical calculations, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. The limitation “transmitting…price” is insignificant extra solution activity of transmitting price result. Therefore, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, decision and communication of result, which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Furthermore, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a trading and analysis of energy distribution quantity. The specification discloses that the focus of the invention is to evaluate utility through energy trading in consideration of governmental ESG considerations (see page 1-2) thereby providing an energy trading method (page 3). Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activities. Sales activities are market analysis, actions and task used in a transaction process.
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a trading system integrated with a main grid and resource network and a processor.
The additional element processor is being applied to perform the method steps “identifying…power generation quantity …”, “determining power generation price…and production cost…” which is merely applying technology as a tool to analyze commercial related data for a transaction.
The additional element processor applied to perform the method steps “transmitting…power generation price…”, “receiving…energy trade information…”, “providing the calculated energy distribution quantity…” which according to the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitations (“transmitting…power generation price…”, “receiving…energy trade information…”, “providing the calculated energy distribution quantity…”) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a method steps 1) and 2) do not require any technology and merely recite insignificant extra solution activity of 1) receiving ESG data and 2) receiving power generation data – which is mere data gathering.
The claimed limitations steps 3-5 as being performed “by the processor” are at a high level of generality with an expected outcome without details of technical implementation. Steps 3-5 merely apply the processor as a tool to perform analysis of power quantity data, power generation price determination and to calculate energy distribution quantity. Steps 6-8 apply a processor as a tool generically with high level fucntions and expected results for data transmission.
The wherein clause “wherein the providing comprises transmitting, to the energy provider, a power generation quantity corresponding to an energy quantity to be additionally produced based on the received energy trade information, so that the energy provider generates additional energy by controlling the power generation quantity of the central power plant and supplies the generated additional energy to the target energy consumer at a time of the energy trading,” does not further limit the technical process of providing energy distribution quantity as a technical process but instead further limits the amount of energy produced for delivery based on trade information and for supplying the consumer at the time of energy trading/distribution. The wherein clause does not further limit the technical process ESG performance enhancement but instead limits the different energy type quantity and generation rates acted upon and ESG score evaluation according to the energy types quantity and generation rates, limiting the data received. The wherein clause “wherein charging and discharging of an energy storage system (ESS) and operation of photovoltaic (PV) generation of the target energy consumers are adjusted according to the calculated energy distribution quantity,” further limits the energy amount provided as a result of the calculated energy quantity distribution, but fail to provide any details as a technical process of how the amount of energy is adjusted. These limitations are not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2. The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than performing an abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. The claim limitations are silent with respect to technology or technological processes. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that the steps could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-2 are directed toward insignificant extra solution business related activity of collecting data – a common business practice. The combination of limitations 1-2 and 3-5 are directed toward identifying data values in an analysis for allocating calculated energy distribution amounts to each consumer to achieve ESG performance enhancement, using the data of limitations 1-2 as variables for a calculation and business practice. The combination of limitations 1-5 and 6-8 is directed toward providing the calculated energy quantity based on the results of limitations 1-5 transmitted and received. The allocating step is being performed by any technology, instead the limitation is directed toward the allocation of calculated energy distribution to each consumer which is a commercial activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea as the claim limitations lack any technical components. . The claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception because the claim limitations are not directed toward any concepts related to technology or include any technology within the claims. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of collecting and determining data values that are used to calculate another value for a business process.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to calculate a distribution quantity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a trading system integrated with a main grid and resource network and a processor.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “processor” performing the operations of “identifying”, “determining”, “calculating”, “transmitting”, “receiving” and “providing…energy distribution quantity” for achieving ESG performance enhancement.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a processor for “identifying” data, “determining” energy quantity/price, “calculating” quantity, “transmitting” price, “receiving” trade information and “providing” energy distribution quantity----are some of the most basic functions of a computer.
Accordingly the “by a processor” limitation is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a processor” or requiring no more than a generic processor to perform generic processor functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. The claim limitations do not recite that claimed “processor” performs more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic processor component cannot provide an inventive concept.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the limitations as a whole are not directed toward a particular technical process in technology but rather high level function for implementing the abstract idea. The claimed limitations as a combination “receiving, identifying, determining, calculating and allocating” are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receiving, identifying, determining, calculating and allocating”... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming". None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic processor to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
“The components described in the embodiments may be implemented by hardware components including, for example, at least one digital signal processor (DSP), a processor, a controller, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic element, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA), other electronic devices, or combinations thereof. At least some of the functions or the processes described in the embodiments may be implemented by software, and the software may be recorded on a recording medium. The components, the functions, and the processes described in the embodiments may be implemented by a combination of hardware and software.” (page 16 lines 5-12)
“The embodiments described herein may be implemented using a hardware component, a software component and/or a combination thereof. A processing device may be implemented using one or more general-purpose or special-purpose computers, such as, for example, a processor, a controller, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a microcomputer, an FPGA, a programmable logic unit (PLU), a microprocessor, or any other device capable of responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner. The processing device may run an operating system (OS) and one or more software applications that run on the OS. The processing device may also access, store, manipulate, process, and create data in response to execution of the software. For purpose of simplicity,
the description of a processing device is used as singular; however, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that a processing device may include multiple processing elements and/or multiple types of processing elements. For example, the processing device may include a 25 plurality of processors, or a single processor and a single controller. In addition, different processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors.” (page 16 lines 13-page 17 lines 1)
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 3 the dependent claim has also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward energy content quantity stored or production cost which is mere data content related toward a business process.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 3 is directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
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(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2019/0372345 A1 by Bain et al. (Bain) , in view of US Pub No. 2022/0284458 A1 by Sun (Sun) in view of “How to Calculate Carbon Emissions” by diginex (diginex) and further in view of US Pub no. 2011/0144921 A1 by Ishibashi (Ishibashi)
In reference to claim 1:
Bain teaches:
(Currently Amended) An energy trading method performed by an energy market of an energy trading system, integrated with a main grid and a distributed energy resource network ((Bain) in at least para 0006-0007, para 0076-0077), the energy trading method comprising:
receiving environmental, social and governance (ESG) demand information from a target energy consumer among target energy consumers of the energy trading system, the target energy consumer having an energy demand quantity greater than an energy generation quantity ((Bain) in at least FIG. 29, FIG. 34; abstract wherein the prior art teaches consumer in energy utility market; para 0003, para 0135, para 0160, para 0334-0335, para 0392, para 0399 wherein the prior art teaches data can be mined in real time including ESG energy mix, para 0466, para 0475, para 0480, para 0482), wherein the ESG demand information comprises an energy purchase quantity, a greenhouse gas emissions quantity and a new and renewable energy generation rate of the target energy consumer ((Bain) in at least Fig. 3; Fig. 6A-B, Fig. 6D, Fig. 12, Fig. 14-15, Fig. 17, Fig. 29-32; para 0003, para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches obtaining and integrating data including cost data, pricing data, credit data, para 0034, para 0060, para 0090, para 0311, para 0313-0314, para 0330-0332, para 0364-0367, para 0382-0383, para 0385, para 0403-0404, para 0475-0479, para 0483-0484)
receiving power generation information from an energy provider of the energy trading system, wherein the power generation information comprises an energy quantity produced through a central power plant and a production cost required to produce additional energy ((Bain) in at least FIG. 29, FIG. 34; para 0006-0007 production of energy for grid for given time period and energy prices by sources of production; para 0010, para 0013, para 0015, para 0018, para 0023, para 0031, para 0160, para 0328 wherein the prior art teaches calculating across multiple production types prices associated with each of the production times consumption amounts and prices including forward ahead pricing and use data; para 0330-0332 wherein the prior art teaches data include price data, tax/credit data, realtime pricing, energy cost data, services cost data, system operator cost data, transmission utility price data generation utility price data , para 0334-0335, para 0392, para 0399 wherein the prior art teaches data can be mined in real time including ESG energy mix, para 0465-0466, para 0475, para 0480, para 0482);
identifying, by a processor of the energy market, a power generation quantity of the energy provider required to meet a demand of the target energy consumer using the received ESG demand information and the received power generation information ((Bain) in at least para 00329, para 0331-0332, para 0461, para 0465, para 0534);
determining, by the processor, a power generation price as a system marginal price (SMP) that the target energy consumer needs to pay for purchasing energy from the energy provider according to the identified power generation quantity of the energy provider and the production cost included in the received power generating information ((Bain) in at least FIG. 4; FIG. 6A, FIG. 7; para 0328 wherein the prior art teaches calculating across multiple production types prices associated with each of the production times consumption amounts and prices including forward ahead pricing and use data; para 0330-0332 wherein the prior art teaches data include price data, tax/credit data, realtime pricing, energy cost data, services cost data, system operator cost data, transmission utility price data generation utility price data, para 0336, para 0340-0342, para 0444, para 0447, para 0467, para 0534); and
calculating, by the processor, an energy distribution quantity per unit time for each of the target energy consumers to enhance ESG of all the target energy consumers based on the determined power generation price. ((Bain) in at least para 0006 wherein the prior art teaches data sources include energy grid during a given period of time and energy prices charged by the sources of production; para 0017 wherein the prior art teaches providing estimate of production output of energy for distribution over a consumer distribution network presented of updated at least once per time interval by calculating estimate of demand; para 0031-0032 wherein the prior art teaches calculating cost of energy usage for each type of different types of energy and allocated energy usage consumed in discrete time intervals- aggregating calculated cost of energy usage for each time interval and selectable future discrete time interval; para 0045 wherein the prior art teaches measuring energy consumption for the facility with the meter that records energy consumption for adjacent time intervals and determining energy consumption context for time intervals and energy usage models produce estimate of energy consumption for each of the energy consumption for time intervals; para 0061-0062 wherein the prior art teaches receiving estimated amount and timeframe of availability of energy from each multiple energy producers of type of energy suitable for distribution and calculating cost; para 0069, para 0073-0076, para 0078-0079, para 0088, para 0093, para 0330, para 0336, para 0340-0342, para 0372, para 0393-0394, para 0444, para 0447, para 0467, para 0534), and
transmitting, by the processor, the determined power generation price to the target energy consumer ((Bain) in at least para 0003 wherein the prior art teaches consumer receiving report, para 0061 wherein the prior art teaches presenting to consumer comparative cost estimate for multiple energy providers for adjacent time intervals, para 0397, para 0466, para 0482);
receiving, by the processor, energy trade information from the target energy consumer, the energy trade information being determined according to the transmitted power generation price ((Bain) in at least para 0003 wherein the prior art teaches consumer receiving report, para 0022-0023, para 0031, para 0058, para 0061 wherein the prior art teaches presenting to consumer comparative cost estimate for multiple energy providers for adjacent time intervals, para 0064, para 0066, para 0071, para 0074-0075); and
providing the calculated energy distribution quantity to each of the target energy consumers, wherein charging and discharging of an energy storage system (ESS) and operation of Photovoltaic (PV) generation of the target energy consumers are adjusted according to the calculated energy distribution quantity to achieve the ESG performance enhancement ((Bain) in at least para 0087-0088, para 0092-0093, para 0108-0109, para 0161, para 0184, para 0251, para 0265, para 0311, para 0313-0314, para 0364-0367 wherein the prior art teaches energy points calculated, para 0382-0383, para 0385, para 0392), wherein the providing comprises transmitting, to the energy provider, a power generation quantity corresponding to an energy quantity to be additionally produced based on the received energy trade information, so that the energy provider generates additional energy by controlling the power generation quantity of the central power plant and supplies the generated additional [future] energy to the target energy consumer at a time of the energy trading ((Bain) in at least para 0015-0017, para 0076, para 0082, para 0104, para 0392, para 0462, para 0464, para 0466, para 0473), wherein the ESG performance enhancement is determined based on the greenhouse gas emission quantity, a new and renewable energy generation rate, …((Bain) in at least Fig. 4, Fig. 12, Fig. 29-32, para 0022-0023, para 0031, para 0045, para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches producers control energy flow to network from multiple producers based on forecasted allocation demand, 0087-0088 wherein the prior art teaches each source of energy adjusted in real-time in response to consumer selection of raw energy source for given time interval and teaches providing indicators of capacity, availability and consumer selected demand where the capacity is adjusted based on plurality of energy providers who provide energy where the availability is determined by subtracting demand from energy produced, para 0092-0093 wherein the prior art teaches “estimate given of available energy for a given time for each source of energy adjusted in real time in response to consumer selection”, para 0108-0109, para 0161, para 0184 wherein the prior art teaches energy producer platform adjust allocation of energy from plurality of energy provides that use different energy sources in order to meet energy usage objectives, para 0251, para 0265, para 0330 wherein the prior art teaches renewable energy credits/carbon credits; para 0311, para 0313-0314, para 0334 wherein the prior art teaches carbon use and transmission; para 0345 wherein the prior art teaches carbon footprint and other metrics of renewable energy; para 0364-0369 wherein the prior art teaches energy/carbon points responding to low/high emissions signals, para 0368 wherein the prior art teaches carbon points calculated; para 0382-0383, para 0385, 0403-0404, para 0423, para 0475-0479, para 0483-0484),
wherein the total utility of all the target energy consumers is determined based on:
(i) an utility of an i-th target energy consumer, determined based on an energy
quantity consumed in a k-th time slot by the i-th target energy consumer, a preference of the i-th target energy consumer ((Bain) in at least para 0171, para 0181, para 0345, para 0354),…
Bain does not explicitly teach:
…ESG score evaluated according to the greenhouse gas emission quantity and the new and renewable energy generation rate;
wherein the total utility of all the target energy consumers is determined based on:
(i) an utility of an i-th target energy consumer, determined based on …a maximum charge quantity of the ESS in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer, and an energy quantity transacted with the energy provider in the k-th time slot by the i-th target energy consumer:
(ii) the photovoltaic (PV) operation cost in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer;
(iii) an energy charging and discharging cost of the ESS in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer:
(iv) the greenhouse gas emission quantity in the k-th time slot by the i-th target energy consumer;
(v) a new and renewable energy generation rate in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer:
(vi) a gain from trading new and renewable energy in the k-th time slot; and
(vii) an energy production cost in the k-th time slot.
Diginex teaches:
wherein the ESG performance enhancement is determined based on the greenhouse gas emission quantity, a new and renewable energy generation rate, and an ESG score evaluated according to the greenhouse gas emission quantity and the new and renewable energy generation rate,((Diginex) in at least page 4 step 3)
Both Bain and Diginex are directed toward collecting data related to greenhouse and alternative energy sources produced and the calculation of green scores (Bain para 0281). Diginex teaches the motivation of applying in the calculation of green score using carbon emissions so that stateholders have a measurement of carbon emissions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data applied to calculate the green score of Bain to include the variables as taught by Digninex since Diginex teaches the motivation of applying in the calculation of green score using carbon emissions so that stateholders have a measurement of carbon emissions.
Sun teaches:
…ESG performance enhancement is determined based on the greenhouse gas emission quantity, a new and renewable energy generation rate and ESG score evaluated according to the greenhouse gas emission quantity and the new and renewable energy generation rate
wherein the calculating of the energy distribution quantity comprises determining an energy distribution quantity per unit time for each of the target energy consumers so that a total utility of all the target energy consumers is maximized ((Sun) in at least para 0007, para 0011, para 0018, para 0020-0021, para 0030-0033, para 0039- 0043, para 0066);
wherein the providing comprises transmitting, to the energy provider, a power generation quantity corresponding to an energy quantity to be additionally produced based on the received energy trade information, so that the energy provider generates additional energy by controlling the power generation quantity of the central power plant and supplies the generated additional [future] energy to the target energy consumer at a time of the energy trading…((Sun) in at least para 0020, para 0033, para 0040, para 0064, para 0067, para 0078, para 0082-0084, para 0089 wherein the prior art teaches selling power spanning period of time where the price curve is tracked with respect to amount of power sold where price form reflects volatility reflects amount of energy available for trading liquidity, para 0108, para 0113)
wherein the total utility of all the target energy consumers ((Sun) in at least para 0009, para 0017-0020, para 0031, para 0033, para 0040, para 0127, para 0132) is determined based on:
(i) an utility of an i-th target energy consumer, determined based on an energy quantity consumed in a k-th time slot by the i-th target energy consumer ((Sun) in at least para 0009, para 0013, para 0018, para 0020, para 0031-0033), …determined based on …a maximum charge quantity of the ESS in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer, and an energy quantity transacted with the energy provider in the k-th time slot by the i-th target energy consumer ((Sun) in at least FIG. 5; para 0031, para 0084-0085, para 0181):
(ii) the photovoltaic (PV) operation cost in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer ((Sun) in at least para 0019-0021, para 0025, para 0031-0035, para 0078, para 0081, para 0084-0085, para 0124-0127);
(iii) an energy charging and discharging cost of the ESS in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer ((Sun) in at least para 0129):…
(v) the new and renewable energy generation rate in the k-th time slot for the i-th target energy consumer ((Sun) in at least para 0019-0021, para 0025, para 0031-0035, para 0078, para 0081, para 0084-0085, para 0124-0127):
(vi) a gain from trading new and renewable energy in the k-th time slot ((Sun) in at least para 0020, para 0031, para 0035, para 0038, para 0042-0043, para 0084-0085, para 0137); and
(vii) an energy production cost in the k-th time slot .((Sun) in at least para 0020, para 0032-0033, para 0083-0084, para 0118, para 0137)
Both Bain and Sun are directed toward calculating energy distribution per time period. Sun teaches the motivation due to penetration of volatile (e.g. wind does not blow, sun does not shine) renewable energy in energy markets that it is needed to combine and analyze a variety of energy sources in the analysis for optimal distribution and profits to prevent uneven power balance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data applied in the analysis for energy distribution of Bain to include the different data for analysis of Sun since Sun teaches the motivation due to penetration of volatile (e.g. wind does not blow, sun does not shine) renewable energy in energy markets that it is needed to combine and analyze a variety of energy sources in the analysis for optimal distribution and profits to prevent uneven power balance
Ishibashi teaches:
(iv) the greenhouse gas emission quantity in the k-th time slot by the i-th target energy consumer;(( Ishibashi) in at least Abstract; para 0010, para 0013, para 0018, para 0038, para 0057-0065)
Both Bain and Ishibashi are directed toward energy trading system that trade a variety of energy mediums. Ishibashi teaches the motivation that when electric power is stored in a battery applying an algorithm to calculate greenhouse gas emissions over time in order to provide information on gases emitted when generating electric power for accurate emissions trading of electric power stored in a battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data applied in the analysis for energy distribution of Bain to include calculation of greenhouse gas emissions as taught by Ishibashi since Ishibashi teaches the motivation that when electric power is stored in a battery applying an algorithm to calculate greenhouse gas emissions over time in order to provide information on gases emitted when generating electric power for accurate emissions trading of electric power stored in a battery.
In reference to claim 3:
The combination of Bain, Diginex, Sun and Ishibashi discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Bain further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The energy trading method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the power generation information comprises
at least one of an energy quantity currently stored or an energy production cost required to produce additional energy of the energy provider. ((Bain) in at least FIG. 20, FIG. 22, FIG. 27; para 0005, para 0078, para 0442, para 0473)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. How To Calculate Your Individual ESG Score & Sustainability Impact by KnowESG
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 MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights