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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/391,374 filed on 12/20/2023 in which claims 1-18 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023, 04/01/2024, 02/12/2025 and 04/23/2026 have been considered and put on record. Initialed copies are attached herewith.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “…establishing an objective function of a shared energy storage system participating in cooperative scheduling of energy frequency regulation and load demand; inputting relevant parameters of a grid side, a user side and the shared energy storage system into the objective function; solving the objective function according to an objective function constraint condition and a switching cost of a load importance degree and in combination with a mixed integer linear programming algorithm, to obtain a shared energy storage configuration scheme based on energy frequency regulation and load demand; configuring the shared energy storage system according to the shared energy storage configuration scheme...” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
In step 2A prong 1: The limitations above are found by the courts to fall into Mental Processes (see the 2019 PEG).
In step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because collecting battery charge parameters, logging charge parameters as historical data, and developing a trend line from historical data can be performed by human mind in a piece of paper.
In step 2B:The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited such as, “…and controlling the shared energy storage system to participate in energy cooperative scheduling of the grid side and the user side according to a hierarchical control strategy of the shared energy storage system” are well understood routine and conventional for a charge manager and scheduling system that performs its controlling function. Additionally the limitations of “solving the objective function according to an objective function constraint condition and a switching cost of a load importance degree and in combination with a mixed integer linear programming algorithm, to obtain a shared energy storage configuration scheme based on energy frequency regulation and load demand” is recited at a high generality. Furthermore, the processor and memory recited in claim 10 are recited at a high generality and are insufficient because they are well known, routine, and conventional because they simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional limitations recited in dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are nothing more than a judicial exception without tangible result claimed. The steps are nothing more than mathematical manipulations and solving an algorithm based on some equations would not appear to be sufficient to constitute a tangible result, since the outcome of these steps has not been used in a disclosed practical application nor made available in such a manner that its usefulness in a disclosed practical application can be realized.
Therefore claims 1-18 are patent ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,5-6,10,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114330909 A(hereinafter “Ref1”) and CN 113315143 A (hereinafter “Ref2”)(both cited by Applicants) in view of Neumann USPAT 11,289,206 B2.
Regarding claims 10 and 1: Ref1 at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-8: A shared energy storage scheduling system based on energy frequency regulation and load demand(see [0079],[0215]), wherein the shared energy storage scheduling system comprises: at least one processor and memory(note- the convergence process of the two-layer ADMM algorithm is shown in (a), (b) and (c) in Figure 8 inherently comprises a processor and memory); and the memory stores computer-executed instructions; the at least one processor executes the computer-executed instructions stored in the memory to enable the at least one processor to: establish an objective function of a shared energy storage system (see [0089]-[0155]) participating in cooperative scheduling of energy frequency regulation and load demand(load shedding coast; see [0126]-[0127]); input relevant parameters of a grid side, a user side and the shared energy storage system into the objective function; solve the objective function according to an objective function constraint condition and a switching cost of a load importance degree and in combination with a mixed integer linear programming algorithm, to obtain a shared energy storage configuration scheme based on energy frequency regulation and load demand; configure the shared energy storage system according to the shared energy storage configuration scheme([0195]-[0215]), and to control the shared energy storage system to participate in energy cooperative scheduling of the grid side and the user side according to a hierarchical control strategy of the shared energy storage system.
Ref 1 does not expressly disclose the limitations of:
input relevant parameters of a grid side, a user side and the shared energy storage system into the objective function; solve the objective function according to an objective function constraint condition and a switching cost of a load importance degree and in combination with a mixed integer linear programming algorithm, to obtain a shared energy storage configuration scheme based on energy frequency regulation and load demand, and to control the shared energy storage system to participate in energy cooperative scheduling of the grid side and the user side according to a hierarchical control strategy of the shared energy storage system.
Ref 2 teaches and shows in Figs. 1-4 and ([0037]-[0083])factual evidence of, an energy storage frequency modulation apparatus, in which energy storage units are divided into a first energy storage unit and a second energy storage unit, which are connected to the output bus of the generator set, for exchanging electric energy with the output bus. Ref2 further discloses, a control unit, communicating with the first energy storage unit and the second energy storage unit, for controlling the first energy storage unit and the second energy storage unit to work in different working modes at different working modes according to the power grid frequency, so that the power grid frequency is maintained in the preset range. Optionally, the control unit is further used for according to the charge state of the first energy storage unit and/or the second energy storage unit, switching the working mode of the first energy storage unit and the second energy storage unit.
The combination of Ref1 and Rerf2 does not expressly teach the limitations of, “solve the objective function according to an objective function constraint condition and a switching cost of a load importance degree and in combination with a mixed integer linear programming algorithm”.
However Neumann discloses and shows in Fig. 1, factual evidence of a system 100 for constitutional analysis using objective functions is illustrated. System includes a computing device 104. Computing device 104 is configured to produce ranked list 108 by ranking diseases according to optimization of first objective function 128. Objective function may be formulated as a linear objective function, which computing device 104 may solve using a linear program such as without limitation a mixed -integer program(see col. 12, lines 46-59).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ref1 and Ref 2 with Neumann, to have: input relevant parameters of a grid side, a user side and the shared energy storage system into the objective function; solve the objective function according to an objective function constraint condition and a switching cost of a load importance degree and in combination with a mixed integer linear programming algorithm, to obtain a shared energy storage configuration scheme based on energy frequency regulation and load demand, and to control the shared energy storage system to participate in energy cooperative scheduling of the grid side and the user side according to a hierarchical control strategy of the shared energy storage system, as recited, in order to avoid a frequent switching by combining Ref2 with Ref 1 in order to control a shared energy storage system to participate in energy cooperative scheduling of a power grid side and a user side. It would have further been obvious to modify Ref1 and Ref2 by, solving the objective function according to an objective function constraint condition and a switching cost of a load importance degree and in combination with a mixed integer linear programming algorithm for the advantages of optimizing the linear objective function, as taught by Neumann(col. 12, lines 46-59).
Accordingly claims 1 and 10 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ref1 discloses (see [0088]-[0148]) discloses a model of the shared energy storage system, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a corresponding objective function and constraint condition according to actual control requirements since a patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Accordingly claims 5 and 14 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15, Ref 1 in view of Ref2 and Neumann discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Ref2 further discloses (see [0051]-[0062]) discloses that the storage unit operates in a charging mode at a first time , the second energy storage unit operates in a discharging mode at a second time, and in response to the state of charge of the first energy storage unit and/or the state of charge of the second energy storage unit exceeding the preset state-of-charge, the operating mode of the first energy storage unit is switched to the discharging mode and the operating mode of the second energy storage unit is switched to the charging mode.
Accordingly claims 6-7 and 15 would have been obvious.
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2014/106105 A1 to Gong et al., (Gong) discloses management method for energy storage system in energy market involves executing management routine to charge or discharge energy from energy storage system to electric grid based on system condition values and market condition values.
US 2023/0121114 A1 to Baumgärtner et al., (Baumgärtner) discloses an energy management method and energy management system.
US 2022/0294224 A1 to Zhang et al., (Zhang) discloses an operation decision-making method for centralized cloud energy storage capable of participating in power grid auxiliary services.
CN 110516855 B to Wang et al., (Wang) discloses the general state of the art regarding a load-facing aggregator oriented distributed energy storage control power optimization scheduling method.
CN 113315144 A to Hu et al., (Hu) discloses an energy storage system operation method of new energy plant sharing energy storage participating in frequency modulation.
USPAT 10,892,620 B2 to Gutenmann et al., (Gutenmann) discloses a state of charge maintenance during operation of energy storage systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights