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 Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received October 22, 2025. Claim(s) 2 and 4-12 have been canceled. Claims 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1 and 3 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission has been entered.
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 08/1 1/2023
Applicant Name/Assignee: ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Inventor(s): Yoo, Yoon-Sik; Lee, II Woo;
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
Applicant's amendments in response to the previous Office action rejection for failing to comply with written description requirements are sufficient to overcome the 112(a) rejection of claims 1- 3 and 8-10. The examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
Applicant’s amendments in response to the previous Office action rejection for failing to clearly claim applicant’s invention under 112(b) are sufficient to overcome the 112(b) rejection of claims 1- 3 and 8-10. The examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant points to the limitation "providing calculated energy quantity to each consumer, wherein charging and discharging energy storage system and operation of the PV generation of the energy consumers are adjusted according to the calculated quantity". The applicant argues the "adjusts" the operation of the physical hardware components based on calculated energy quantity includes significantly more than the ties to the hardware the calculation and therefor provides patent eligibility. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The "adjusting" of the generation of quantity of energy by the energy storage system and PV generation because of a calculated result does not improve the system or PV operation. Neither is the calculation directed toward how the system generates energy or the PV performs its generation as a technical process, rather the calculation is directed toward calculating product (energy) needed to meet customer demands. Accordingly the adjusting of the energy generated is in order to meet a commercial activity which is an abstract concept. Accordingly the "adjusting" of the quantity of energy generated does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea as the "adjusting" is part of the commercial interaction. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “receive ESG demand information that includes ESG evaluation indicators such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emission quantity and a new and renewable energy generation rate” reflecting ESG indicators in calculating the energy distribution quantity. Applicant argues that prior art Bain discloses a general energy trading structure but does not teach the amended limitations. The examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the amended “receiving” limitation wherein clause “ wherein the ESG demand information comprises at least one of an energy purchase quantity, a greenhouse gas emission quantity, or a new and renewable energy generation rate of the target energy consumer “the prior art teaches in FIG. 12 and FIG. 15, the application providing information depicting mix of electricity usage over predetermined time intervals and the current cost“, para 0330-0332 wherein the prior art teaches data including energy usage data, price data, tax/credit data, availability of renewable energy/carbon credits, real time pricing, forward looking pricing, where the energy usage data is received.
With respect to the “providing” limitation “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 , the prior art teaches para 0087-0088 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. The prior art teaches in para 0092 estimate given of available energy for a given time for each source of energy adjusted in real time in response to consumer selection. The prior art teaches para 0184 the energy producer platform adjust allocation of energy from plurality of energy provides that use different energy sources in order to meet energy usage objectives.
With respect to the wherein clause “wherein the ESG performance enhancement is determined based on at least one of a 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,”, the prior art explicitly teaches determining the ESG performance by determining availability of the renewable energy based on the determined capacity of the different energy producers of renewable energy against demand and explicitly teaches consumers receiving energy points/carbon points based on usage by shifting usage from high emission hours to low emission hours where the emission levels based on percentage of total system served by wind generation when consumers reduce carbon foot print. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach “ESG evaluation indicators (i.e. GHG emission quantity and new and renewable energy generation rate) in calculating energy distribution quantities or achieving ESG performance enhancement as in the claimed embodiment. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See para 0367 and response above with respect to argument 1.
Examiner notes the limitation “ESG score evaluated according to the greenhouse gas emission quantity and the new and renewable energy generation rate” is optional
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 1-3 and 8-10 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) 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. Therefore, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and decision 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 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. 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 wherein clause does not further limit the technical process of calculating but instead limit the elements applied in the calculation (utility of energy consumer, PV cost, energy charging/discharging cost, greenhouse emission quantity, new/renewable generate rate, gain from trading new/renewable energy and production cost). The wherein clause “wherein the ESG demand information comprises at least one of an energy purchase quantity, a greenhouse gas emission quantity, or a new and renewable energy generation rate of the target energy consumer” does not further limit the receiving function but instead limits 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. The wherein clause “wherein the ESG performance enhancements determined based on at least one of a 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” is not directed toward a technical process but instead the data acted upon in an analysis. 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 1-4 and 5 is directed toward calculating a quantity for allocation using the values of limitations 1-4- to achieve ESG performance enhancement. 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 “processor” performing the operations of “identifying”, “determining”, “calculating” and “allocating” 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 and “allocating” energy 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) 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 of which an energy demand quantity is greater than an energy generation quantity among energy consumers of the energy trading system ((Bain) in at least FIG. 29, FIG. 34; 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 at least one of an energy purchase quantity, a green house gas emissions quantity or 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 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 ((Bain) in at least FIG. 29, FIG. 34; para 0160, para 0331-0332, 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 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 ((Bain) in at least FIG. 4; FIG. 6A, FIG. 7; para 0330, para 0336, para 0340-0342, para 0444, para 0447, para 0467, para 0534); and
calculating, by the processor, an energy distribution quantity for each of target energy consumers to enhance ESG of all the target energy consumers based on the determined power generation price. ((Bain) in at least para 0330, para 0336, para 0340-0342, para 0372, para 0393-0394, para 0444, para 0447, para 0467, para 0534), 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 ESG performance enhancement is determined based on at least one of a 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 ((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 0311, para 0313-0314, para 0364-0369, para 0382-0383, para 0385, para 0403-0404, para 0423, para 0475-0479, para 0483-0484),
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 ((Bain) in at least para 0022, para 0031, para 0069, para 0202-0265, para 0354, para 0363, para 0373), 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:
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.
Sun teaches:
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 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, 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. US Pub No. 2022/0343433 A1 by Yan et al – teaches a method to receive measurements of ESG components and generate ESG score based on ESG data, US Pub No. 2022/0027814 A1 by Lalit et al – identifying undervalued companies based ESG performance (para 0004) and generation of ESG scores (para 0029, para 0035). US Pub No. 2022/0327567 A1 by Farooq – generating ESG scores and determining carbon emissions volume over predefined time period. WO 2022/146427 A1 by Varma et al-teaches providing environmental rating based on emission amounts for predetermined time.
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