DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 8/30/2023.
The application has claims 1-20 present. All present claims have been examined.
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited references filed 11/28/2023 and have been reviewed by the examiner.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a “Method” comprising steps that may be mental process (prong 1). The overall process presented in the claim is receive data associated with plant equipment, generate a model, generate simulations to determine an optimal allotment for the devices, and then store a value associated with that optimum allotment. See par. 6 of the specification. The steps taken provide an opportunity identify best location for the devices to optimize use of cold to hot connections.
Limitations under Step 2A prong 1:
The specific limitations of
processing, via one or more processors, the device data to generate a twin model corresponding to the devices (this is a mental process to create a model for a power plant, using an algorithm and its rules as a tool to apply the abstract idea using a computer).
generating, via one or more processors, a sequence of simulated installations based on the twin model, to approximate the global optimum allotment of the plurality of devices with respect to a plant optimization target (this is a mental process using a model for power plant, and using an algorithm and its rules as a tool to apply the abstract idea using a computer).
Limitations under Step 2A prong 2:
The limitations of
receiving, via one or more processors, device data including available heat sources, available thermal connections, and available heat sinks (is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
causing, via one or more processors, the approximate global optimum allotment to be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory (is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g))).
The system comprises a generic computer, computer model of power plant, data description, data computation, data reception, data comparison and data communication. These correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as data processing as in Electric Power Group, V. Alstom and Digitech Image Tech's V. Electronics for Imaging. The concepts described in claim 1 are not meaningfully different than data processing found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
Step 2B – not significant more.
Thus, the recited “Method” is an abstract idea in that it is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and it does not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Furthermore, the additional element of using a computer as a tool to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the recited method is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2: wherein the device data includes template data corresponding to an audit of the plant, and wherein processing the device data to generate the twin model corresponding to the plant includes processing the template data (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 3: wherein generating the sequence of simulated installations includes performing a top-down approximation algorithm (this is a mental process).
Claim 4: wherein the plant optimization target is an aggregate net present value of the approximate global optimum allotment of the plurality of devices, wherein generating the sequence of simulated installations includes applying a domain-knowledge-based heuristic including the steps of: identifying, in the simulated installations, a warmest heat source having a positive heat supply, a warmest heat sink having a positive heat demand and a first thermal connection having a maximum net present value with respect to the warmest heat source and the warmest heat sink; and generating an indication of the warmest heat source, the warmest heat sink and the first thermal connection (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 5: further comprising: determining that the identified warmest heat sink lacks a positive heat demand and that the identified warmest heat source continues to have a positive heat supply; identifying, in the simulated installations, a second warmest heat source having a positive heat demand and a second thermal connection having a maximum net present value with respect to the second warmest heat source and the warmest heat sink; and generating an indication of the second warmest heat source, the warmest heat sink and the second thermal connection (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 6: further comprising: determining that the second warmest heat source lacks a positive heat supply; and identifying a third warmest heat source having positive heat supply (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 7: further comprising: repeating one or more steps of claim 6 until one or both of (i) the simulated installations do not include any heat source having positive heat supply, and (ii) the simulated installations do not include any heat sink with positive heat demand (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 8: further comprising: causing the warmest heat source and the warmest heat sink to be physically coupled according to the first thermal connection; and/or causing the second warmest heat source and the warmest heat sink to be physically coupled according to the second thermal connection (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 9: further comprising: identifying, in the simulated installations, a heat source having a positive heat supply, a heat sink having a positive heat demand and a first thermal connection having a maximum net present value with respect to the heat source and the heat sink; in response to determining that the identified heat sink lacks a positive heat demand and that the identified heat source continues to have a positive heat supply, identifying, in the simulated installations, a second heat source having a positive heat demand and a second thermal connection having a maximum net present value with respect to the second heat source and the heat sink (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 10: further comprising: repeating one or more steps of claim 9 until one or both of (i) the simulated installations do not include any heat source having positive heat supply, and (ii) the simulated installations do not include any heat sink with positive heat demand (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 11: further comprising: in response to determining that an aggregate net present value of the sequence of installations is greater than a net present value of a top-down allotment, stopping the method, wherein the twin data is a first branch-and-bound allotment (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 12 : further comprising: identifying a third heat source having a positive heat supply, a second heat sink having positive heat demand and a second thermal connection having a maximum net present value with respect to the third heat source and the second heat sink; in response to determining that the second heat sink lacks a positive heat demand and that the third heat source includes a positive heat supply, identifying a third heat sink having positive heat demand and a third thermal connection technology having a maximum net present value with respect to the third heat source and the third heat sink; in response to determining that the third heat source does lacks a positive heat supply, identifying fourth heat source having a positive heat supply; and repeating the preceding steps until a heat source having positive heat supply cannot be identified and/or a heat sink having a positive heat demand cannot be identified, wherein the twin data is a second short-sighted allotment (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 13: further comprising: in response to determining that an aggregate net present value of the sequence of installations is greater than a net present value of a top-down allotment, stopping the method, wherein the twin data is a second branch-and-bound allotment (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 14: further comprising: determining an aggregate net present value of the first short-sighted allotment and an aggregate net present value of the second short-sighted allotment; determining a beam allotment based on the aggregate net present value of the first short-sighted allotment and the aggregate net present value of the second short-sighted allotment; and determining a second beam allotment based on the aggregate net present value of the second short-sighted allotment and the aggregate net present value of the first short- sighted allotment (further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claim to obtain data, to calculate optimal allotment in a model of the plant and simulation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible).
Claim 15-17 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims have the same limitations as the claims on the first set but in a system and computer readable medium embodiment. Accordingly, the recited system and CRM are non-statutory 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.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stagner (2012/0215362), in view of Chiu et al. (2023/0214549).
In regards to claims (1, 15 and 18), Stagner teaches a computer-implemented method for determining an approximate global optimum allotment of a plurality of devices (see para 81: Determines optimal specifications, equipment installation, and operating schedules for plant equipment and thermal storage over extended time periods”), the method comprising: receiving, via one or more processors, device data including available heat sources, available thermal connections, and available heat sinks (see FIG. 2 and at least para 87-91: teaches input of equipment including heating cooling and thermal equipment); processing, via one or more processors, the device data to generate a model corresponding to the devices (see at least para 8, 81: “There are several calculation steps or modules that in any combination could be integrated in this program with the goal of this predictive forward modeling to optimize economic efficiency for heating, cooling and electricity demands. The determined optimal energy dispatching schema can, for example, be used in a variety of ways such as, for example and without any limitations, for (p) real time energy dispatching by the energy plant for one or more of the plurality of incremental time segments defined in the forward-looking time period, (pp) an existing energy plant optimization over the forward looking time period, (ppp) a new energy plant planning and design over the forward looking time period or any other forward-looking time period.” Para 81: Determines optimal specifications, equipment installation, and operating schedules for plant equipment and thermal storage over extended time periods”).
Stagner teaches determining optimal equipment installation and modeling as taught above but doesn’t specifically teach a twin model; a sequence of simulated installations based on the twin model, to approximate the global optimum allotment of the plurality of devices with respect to a plant optimization target; and causing, via one or more processors, the approximate global optimum allotment to be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory.
Chiu teaches twin model; a sequence of simulated installations based on the twin model, to approximate the global optimum allotment of the plurality of devices with respect to a plant optimization target; and causing, via one or more processors, the approximate global optimum allotment to be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory. (see at least para 16, 50: teaches using twin models in order to simulate and optimize configuration and resources, these can then be applied).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Chiu in combination with the teachings of Stagner, since the simulations can run with different constrains for cases or device configurations and it facilitates and improves the process to obtain an optimized configuration in order to achieve the best configuration and results.
Although Stagner doesn’t specifically mention incorporating cold-to-hot thermal connection technologies within a plant, Stagner does teach in para 3 the need for optimal plant design and operation of heating and cooling plants and further in para 81, which teaches that it determines optimal equipment installation for plant equipment.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Stagner in order to model configurations that include cold to hot, since it would provide means to optimize device installation using different technologies available for heating and cooling plants.
Claim(s) (2 and 17) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stagner (2012/0215362), in view of Chiu et al. (2023/0214549), as applied to claims above, in view of Gray et al (US 20040024662).
In regards to claims (2 and 17), Although Stagner teaches using as input data equipment specification as taught above (para 87-91), it doesn’t specifically teach wherein the device data includes template data corresponding to an audit of the plant, and wherein processing the device data to generate the twin model corresponding to the plant includes processing the template data.
Gray teaches wherein the device data includes template data corresponding to an audit of the plant, and wherein processing the device data to generate the twin model corresponding to the plant includes processing the template data (see at least para 101: template include detail list of assets of a plant).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Gray in combination with the teachings of Stagner, since it would improve the simulation and modeling by increasing the information about the assets of the plant which will then provide better simulations.
Claim(s) (3, 16, 19) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stagner (2012/0215362), in view of Chiu et al. (2023/0214549), as applied to claims above, in view of Groves et al. (US 20110035083).
In regards to claims (3, 16, 19), Stagner doesn’t specifically teach wherein generating the sequence of simulated installations includes performing a top-down approximation algorithm.
Groves teaches wherein generating the sequence of simulated installations includes performing a top-down approximation algorithm (see para 5 simulation using top-down evaluation).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Gray in combination with the teachings of Stagner, since it improves the evaluation of complex problems since top-down design makes it easier to understand and manage large, complex systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14, 20 are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights