Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
More specifically, claim 1 recites: “wherein the at least one active load client transmits event confirmation messages to the at least one server, wherein the event confirmation messages include location data for the at least one grid element”. The original specification does not provide disclosure for “event confirmation messages” nor “the event confirmation messages include location data for the at least one grid element”. This language is not supported by the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter. ((See also 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f), MPEP 608.04, 706.03(o)).
claim 8 also recites: “wherein the at least one server generates revenue grade metrology data based on the measurement and verification for the at least one grid element and based on the location data for the at least one grid element.” This language is not supported by the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter. ((See also 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f), MPEP 608.04, 706.03(o)).
claim 15 recites: “wherein the at least one active load client transmits event confirmation messages to the at least one server;”. This language is not supported by the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter. ((See also 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f), MPEP 608.04, 706.03(o)).
claim 20 recites: “the revenue grade metrology data is further based on a geolocation of the at least one grid element.” This language is not supported by the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter. ((See also 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f), MPEP 608.04, 706.03(o)).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5 – 8, 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton).
Regarding claim 1, Forbes teaches: a system for managing power information for generating operating reserves on an electric power grid, comprising:
at least one server constructed and configured for communicating Internet Protocol (IP)-based messages with at least one smart meter and at least one active load client (Fig. 2, [0052] - - the ALD is a server; ALD communicates over a network using IP-based messages with active load client; [0140] - - ALD controlling the power storage device; Fig. 4, [0091] - - smart meter receives message from ALD); and
a database for storing information including data from the at least one smart meter corresponding to power supplied by at least one grid element (Fig. 2, [0060] - - ALD database 124 and utility power and carbon database 134 are databases; [0023] power consumption data is stored in database; power consumption data represents power supplied by a grid element; [0091] - - smart meter communicates to ALD);
wherein the at least one active load client receives control messages from the at least one server and control a power flow to the at least one grid element based on the control messages (Fig. 1, [0054] - - ALC controls smart appliances,);
wherein the at least one active load client transmits event confirmation messages to the at least one server, wherein the event confirmation messages include location data for the at least one grid element ([0093] - - the active load client supplements received data with geodetic location data and communicates to the ALD);
wherein the at least one grid element includes at least one energy storage device and/or at least one electric vehicle (Fig. 1, [0058] - - power storage device which can be an electric vehicle);
wherein the at least one server and/or the at least one smart meter provides measurement and verification for the at least one grid element based on the data from the at least one smart meter regarding the power supplied by the at least one grid element ([0130] - - the measurement data by ALC is verified by the utility through querying of the ALD); and
wherein the at least one server generates metrology data based on the measurement and verification for the at least one grid element and based on the location data for the at least one grid element ([0073] - - generation mix per serving utility and geography of the customer's location and the location of the nearest power source is stored in the ALD database).
But Forbes does not explicitly teach: generating revenue grade metrology data.
However, Uselton teaches:
generating revenue grade metrology data ([0003] - - revenue grade meter; [0028] - - revenue grade metering; [0032] - - the revenue grade metrology is included in a database).
Forbes and Uselton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Forbes, and incorporating revenue grade meter, as taught by Uselton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve metering accuracy, as suggested by Uselton ([0003]).
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the revenue grade metrology data is generated in real time ([0090] - - real time power usage).
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the control messages are transmitted by the at least one server to the at least one active load client based on need for energy in a particular geographic location associated with the at least one active load client ([0027] - - “Responsive to the override request, the controller may transmit a second message to the affected client device or devices, wherein the second message instructs the affected client devices to turn on power to the previously turned off power consuming devices”. “Responsive to the override request” teaches “based on need for energy”. “a second message” is a control message).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the at least one server is operable to generate consumer profiles for the at least one grid element and/or for one or more groupings of the at least one grid element, and wherein the consumer profiles include at least one location of the at least one grid element and/or remaining supply capacity for the at least one grid element ([0094] - - ALD using additional information which includes geodetic location).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and further in view of Ozog U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0231028 (hereinafter Ozog).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Forbes and Uselton does not explicitly teach: the location data includes at least one Locational Marginal Price (LMP) location for the at least one grid element.
However, Ozog teaches: the location data includes at least one Locational Marginal Price (LMP) location for the at least one grid element ([0009] - - locational marginal price).
Forbes, Uselton and Ozog are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes and Uselton, and incorporating LMP, as taught by Ozog.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to optimize energy use and distribution, as suggested by Ozog ([0002]).
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 3, 10, 15, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and further in view of IPPOLITO et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0326726 (hereinafter IPPOLITO).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Forbes and Uselton does not explicitly teach: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs).
However, IPPOLITO teaches: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs). ([0011], [0012] - - “the distributed demand response programs are aggregated into larger blocks of energy products that a wholesale power company may choose to utilize, trade, and leverage in the market.”)
Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes and Uselton, and incorporating aggregating data to reach a size of power trade block, as taught by IPPOLITO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maximize overall system performance, as suggested by IPPOLITO ([0011]).
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 15, Forbes teaches: a system for managing power information for generating operating reserves on an electric power grid, comprising:
at least one server constructed and configured for communicating Internet Protocol (IP)-based messages with at least one smart meter and at least one active load client (Fig. 2, [0052] - - the ALD is a server; ALD communicates over a network using IP-based messages with active load client; [0140] - - ALD controlling the power storage device; Fig. 4, [0091] - - smart meter receives message from ALD); and
a database for storing information including data from the at least one smart meter corresponding to power supplied by at least one grid element (Fig. 2, [0060] - - ALD database 124 and utility power and carbon database 134 are databases; [0023] power consumption data is stored in database; power consumption data represents power supplied by a grid element; [0091] - - smart meter communicates to ALD);
wherein the at least one active load client receives control messages from the at least one server and control a power flow to the at least one grid element based on the control messages (Fig. 1, [0054] - - ALC controls smart appliances);
wherein the at least one active load client transmits event confirmation messages to the at least one server ([0064] - - confirmation);
wherein the at least one grid element includes at least one energy storage device and/or at least one electric vehicle (Fig. 1, [0058] - - power storage device which can be an electric vehicle);
wherein the at least one server and/or the at least one smart meter provides measurement and verification for the at least one grid element based on the data from the at least one smart meter regarding the power supplied by the at least one grid element ([0130] - - the measurement data by ALC is verified by the utility through querying of the ALD);
wherein the at least one server generates metrology data based on the measurement and verification for the at least one grid element ([0049] - - “ … the power reduction provided by a control event and is measurable, reportable, and verifiable”; [0130] - - the measurement data from active load client is verified by the utility);
But Forbes does not explicitly teach: generating revenue grade metrology data.
However, Uselton teaches:
generating revenue grade metrology data ([0003] - - revenue grade meter; [0028] - - revenue grade metering; [0032] - - the revenue grade metrology is included in a database).
Forbes and Uselton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Forbes, and incorporating revenue grade meter, as taught by Uselton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve metering accuracy, as suggested by Uselton ([0003]).
But the combination of Forbes and Uselton does not explicitly teach: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs).
However, IPPOLITO teaches: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs). ([0011], [0012] - - “the distributed demand response programs are aggregated into larger blocks of energy products that a wholesale power company may choose to utilize, trade, and leverage in the market.”)
Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes and Uselton, and incorporating aggregating data to reach a size of power trade block, as taught by IPPOLITO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maximize overall system performance, as suggested by IPPOLITO ([0011]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the revenue grade metrology data is generated in real time ([0090] - - real time power usage).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the control messages are transmitted by the at least one server to the at least one active load client based on need for energy in a particular geographic location associated with the at least one active load client ([0027] - - “Responsive to the override request, the controller may transmit a second message to the affected client device or devices, wherein the second message instructs the affected client devices to turn on power to the previously turned off power consuming devices”. “Responsive to the override request” teaches “based on need for energy”. “a second message” is a control message).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the at least one server is operable to generate consumer profiles for the at least one grid element and/or for one or more groupings of the at least one grid element, and wherein the consumer profiles include at least one location of the at least one grid element and/or remaining supply capacity for the at least one grid element ([0094] - - ALD using additional information which includes geodetic location).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the revenue grade metrology data is further based on a geolocation of the at least one grid element ([0093] - - the ALC supplement the received power consumption data with geodetic location data; [0130] - - ALD stores energy consumption data and location information based on geodetic references).
Claims 4, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and IPPOLITO et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0326726 (hereinafter IPPOLITO) and further in view of Katagi et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0310428 (hereinafter Katagi) .
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO does not explicitly teach: the one or more power trade blocks (PTBs) are units of approximately 100 kW of power supplied.
However, Katagi teaches: the one or more power trade blocks (PTBs) are units of approximately 100 kW of power supplied ([0387] - - minimum amount of power that can be traded is 500kwh)
Forbes, Uselton, IPPOLITO and Katagi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO, and incorporating aggregating data to reach a size of 500kwh, as taught by Katagi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to perform bulk trading, as suggested by Katagi ([0387]).
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights