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 .
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 describes the limitation "a plurality of classification groups in each of which a classification item is configured". It is unclear how a classification item is "configured" into a classification group - is the classification item modified to fit into a classification group, or is the term "configured" meant to indicate that the classification item matches the values that define the classification group, and is thereby stored due to a matching similarity? The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Dependent claims 2-22 are rejected based on dependency on claim 1.
Claim 7 describes the term "thermal use". The term is unclear as to its limitations as the specification only lists exemplary descriptions of the term as relating to use in heat generating equipment. The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 7 describes the term "driving use". The term is unclear as to its limitations as the specification only lists exemplary descriptions of the term as relating to motor use, and the term is not a term a PHOSITA would recognize as relating to the technology. The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 7 describes the term "air use". The term is unclear as to its limitations as the specification only lists exemplary descriptions of the term as relating to pneumatic, or compressed air usage, and the term is not a term a PHOSITA would recognize as relating to the technology. The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 7 describes the term "vacuum use". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 8 describes the term "added values". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Dependent claims 9-10 are rejected based on dependency on claim 8.
Claim 9 describes the term "added values". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 9 describes the term "a net". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 9 describes the term "an incident". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 9 describes the term "a waste". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 10 describes the term "added values". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 12 describes the term "added values". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim 19 describes the term "uniformized". It is unclear if the term is referring to classification of data, or if it is directed to normalizing data for storage in a database. The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kan et al, Japanese Patent Num JP2013044589A (hereinafter Kan).
Claim 1
Kan discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a classification information obtaining portion configured to obtain classification group information including a plurality of classification groups in each of which a classification item is configured, and association information associating the classification items of the plurality of classification groups with each other (Kan, para 291-296 – Classification of equipment into classification groups by a power consumption facility / power system correspondence relationship setting unit based on associations between a type of equipment and a classification of power consumption equipment.); a data obtaining portion configured to obtain data of power consumed in a facility (Kan , para 309 – Obtain data regarding power consumed in a facility.); and a classification processing portion configured to classify the data obtained by the data obtaining portion, by using the classification group information and the association information obtained by the classification information obtaining portion. (Kan, para 310-313 – The power consumption facility tabulation data processing unit uses the power consumption facility power system correspondence relationship setting data describing the correspondence between the power system setting data and the power consumption facility setting data to calculate the power consumption of each facility.)
This rejection also applies to claim 21.
Claim 2
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification group information includes a classification group into which a power system of the facility is hierarchically classified. (Kan, para 264, 356 - Equipment type, power system hierarchical structure and their relationship.)
Claim 6
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification group information includes a classification group into which uses of energy consumed in the facility are hierarchically classified. (Kan, para 31-32 – Measurement point data is set in a hierarchical structure along with the equipment that is being measured, with each piece of energy consuming equipment having a classification group.)
Claim 7
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification group into which uses of energy consumed in the facility are hierarchically classified includes at least one of a thermal use, a driving use, an air use, and a vacuum use as a classification item. (Kan, para 293 – Classification group including a energy use in air conditioning/”air use”.)
Claim 8
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification group information includes a classification group into which added values generated in the facility are hierarchically classified. (Kan, para 29-32 – Measurement point data is set in a hierarchical structure based on the equipment that is being measured, with each measurement point of energy consuming equipment having a classification group.)
Claim 9
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification group into which the added values generated in the facility are hierarchically classified includes at least one of a net, an incident, and a waste as a classification item. (Kan, para 131, 217 – A classification item for transmission loss/waste values to store the measured values corresponding to transmission loss.)
Claim 10
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification group into which the added values generated in the facility are hierarchically classified includes a classification item related to time and/or a classification item related to energy. (Kan, para 215 – Classified measurement data including items related to energy.)
Claim 13
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses information about a classification result of the classification processing portion is displayed on a display portion. (Kan, para 53 – Displaying classification information on a display screen/portion.)
Claim 14
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses information about a classification result of the classification processing portion is displayed as a graph on a display portion. (Kan, para 53 – Displaying classification information on a display screen/portion in a graph.)
Claim 18
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses a group is set among pieces of equipment of the facility on a basis of content of operation performed by the equipment. (Kan, para 292-293 – Grouping equipment on the basis of the type of operation performed, such as lighting, production equipment, or air conditioning.)
Claim 19
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses hierarchies of the data that are not uniformized when obtained are uniformized to a hierarchy of a distribution board. (Kan, para 292-295, 356 – Data is classified to its related equipment and its setting information including the equipment type/”distribution board”, power system hierarchical structure and their relationship.)
Claim 22
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the information processing method. (Kan, para 117 – Using a computer to perform the classification.)
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan et al, Japanese Patent Num JP2013044589A (hereinafter Kan) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and in view of Kato et al, US Patent Pub US 20120198253 A1 (hereinafter Kato)
Claim 3
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Kan fails to specify the classification group into which the power system of the facility is hierarchically classified includes at least one of a substation, a switchboard, and a distribution board as a classification item.
However Kato teaches the classification group into which the power system of the facility is hierarchically classified includes at least one of a substation, a switchboard, and a distribution board as a classification item. (Kato, para 41, 61 - Facility equipment is classified further into hierarchical groups including switchboard, distribution unit, or substation equipment.)
Kan and Kato are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide efficient and flexible operational management by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kato (abstract).
Claim 4
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Kan fails to specify the classification group information includes a classification group into which an operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified.
However Kato teaches the classification group information includes a classification group into which an operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified. (Kato, para 185 – An operation system is included in a hierarchical classification.)
Kan and Kato are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide efficient and flexible operational management by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kato (abstract).
Claim 5
Kato further teaches the classification group into which the operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified includes at least one of a building, a workplace, equipment, and a unit constituting the equipment as a classification item. (Kato, para 39-41, 61 - Facility equipment, units constituting equipment such as information processing equipment, the building, and location of equipment/workplace, are classified into hierarchical groups.)
Kan and Kato are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide efficient and flexible operational management by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kato (abstract).
Claim 11
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification processing portion classifies the data obtained by the data obtaining portion, by using a classification group into which a power system of the facility is hierarchically classified that is included in the classification group information. (Kan, para 264, 325-330, 356 - Equipment type, power system are divided into a hierarchical structure based on their relationship and used to store measurement values.)
But Kan fails to specify a classification group into which an operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified.
However Kato teaches a classification group into which an operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified. (Kato, para 185 – An operation system is included in a hierarchical classification.)
Kan and Kato are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide efficient and flexible operational management by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kato (abstract).
Claim 12
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kan further discloses the classification processing portion classifies the data obtained by the data obtaining portion, by using a classification group into which an operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified that is included in the classification group information. (Kan, para 264, 309, 325-330, 356 - Equipment type, power system are divided into a hierarchical structure based on their relationship and used to store measurement values.)
But Kan fails to specify a classification group into which an operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified.
However Kato teaches a classification group into which an operation system of the facility is hierarchically classified. (Kato, para 185 – An operation system is included in a hierarchical classification.)
Kan and Kato are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide efficient and flexible operational management by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kato (abstract).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan et al, Japanese Patent Num JP2013044589A (hereinafter Kan) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and in view of Nagathil et al, US Patent Pub US 20130110424 A1 (hereinafter Nagathil)
Claim 15
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Kan fails to specify whether or not an abnormality has occurred in power consumed in the facility is determined on a basis of a standard value related to an operation time in the facility.
However Nagathil teaches whether or not an abnormality has occurred in power consumed in the facility is determined on a basis of a standard value related to an operation time in the facility. (Nagathil, para 30-32 – A comparison of a threshold value and the representative value of sensed power data that is used to determine whether power usage during the predetermined period of time was abnormal.)
Kan and Nagathil are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Nagathil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to generate an alert when it is determined that the consumed power is abnormal by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Nagathil (para 2).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan et al, Japanese Patent Num JP2013044589A (hereinafter Kan) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and in view of Young et al, Korean Patent Num KR20200057818A (hereinafter Young)
Claim 16
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Kan fails to specify the classification group information includes a classification group in which energy consumed in the facility is classified as a renewable energy.
However Young teaches the classification group information includes a classification group in which energy consumed in the facility is classified as a renewable energy. (Young, para 32-33 – Classification of energy data consumed in a building as renewable energy.)
Kan and Young are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Young.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determine measures to take for a building to reach a zero energy status by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Young (abstract).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan et al, Japanese Patent Num JP2013044589A (hereinafter Kan) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and in view of Nanaho et al, Japanese Patent Num JP2013222256 (hereinafter Nanaho)
Claim 17
Kan discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Kan fails to specify the data is classified into an incident or a waste on a basis of a standard time corresponding to content of operation performed in the facility.
However Nanaho teaches `HowHothe data is classified into an incident or a waste on a basis of a standard time corresponding to content of operation performed in the facility. (Nanaho, para 18 – Determining/classifying power consumption data indicating waste corresponding to manufacturing a basic unit of product/operation performed in a standard production time.)
Kan and Nanaho are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Nanaho.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determine when and where waste of energy occurs by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Nanaho (abstract).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan et al, Japanese Patent Num JP2013044589A (hereinafter Kan) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22 above, and in view of Guoquan et al, Chinese Patent Num CN109299872A (hereinafter Guoquan)
Claim 20
But Kan fails to specify an intensity is set for energy consumed in the facility.
However Guoquan teaches an intensity is set for energy consumed in the facility. (Guoquan, lines 210-224 – Setting an energy intensity threshold for energy consumed in a station/facility.)
Kan and Guoquan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy consumption measurement systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy consumption measurement system, as taught by Kan, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Guoquan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to accurately determine and locate faults in the system by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Guoquan (lines 19-25).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hidaka, US Patent Pub US 20200302244 A1 relates to claims regarding classifying current waveforms supplied to electrical instruments.
Hachiya, US Patent Pub US 20160155068 A1 relates to claims regarding classification models and characteristic information for data obtained.
Hanzhi et al, Chinese Patent Num CN109726872A relates to claims regarding preset time classification and energy consumption data over preset time periods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119