DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling on 11/28/2023.
The application has claims 1-20 present. All present claims have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 8: a first main module, a second main module, a third main module, a fourth main module, a fifth main module, a sixth main module and a seventh main module.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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. (FP 7.34.01)
Claim limitation “a first main module, a second main module, a third main module, a fourth main module, a fifth main module, a sixth main module and a seventh main module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification points to FIG. 2 which is merely a box diagram without mentioning structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-7 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 describes determining a peak load regulation capacity for a hydropower station. The claim further determines functions, variables and constraints to make calculations and determination. The solving of the calculations, as briefly described above and as recited in claims 1, are mathematical concepts and a mental process (obtaining limitation and capacity information, peak load data, daily average inflow, and calculating other). See paragraph 6 of the specification. Accordingly, claims 1 recites an abstract idea because the particular limitations, as briefly outlined above, fall into at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Limitations under Step 2A, prong 1:
The specific limitations of
- “Step 1, determining constrains conditions…” (mental process)
- “Step 2, performing comprehensive analysis…” (mental process)
- “Step 3, setting a daily average inflow…” (mathematical process for a variable used on a formula) performing calculations – mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
- “Step 4, setting peak load duration…” (mathematical process for a variable used on a formula) performing calculations – mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
- “Step 5, determining that a daily peak… and starting trial calculation…” (mathematical process) performing calculations – mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
- “Step 5, determining that a daily peak… and starting trial calculation…” (mathematical process) performing calculations – mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
- “Step 6, determining a specific daily load…” (mathematical process using equation and reference values to make a determination) performing calculations – mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
- “Step 7, if N meets an accuracy requirement… (using one of the variable values to make a determination and iteratively make calculation of step 6, mathematical process) performing calculations – mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Limitations under Step 2A, prong 2:
The limitations of
“recording that Ntf is feasible” and “recording a maximum peak load…” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, (making the calculations to be applied to hydropower station determination) – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 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 determining constrains conditions…”, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 3: “wherein the providing the typical daily load process of the hydropower station…”, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 4: “wherein the Step 4 is changed to: setting a peak load regulation amplitude...”, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 5: “wherein the Step 5 is changed to: determining a range from 0 to Δt...”, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 6: “wherein the Step 6 is changed to: according to the daily initial water level Z'...”, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 7: “wherein the Step 7 is changed to: if t meets the accuracy requirement of the dichotomy in changed Step 5...”, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 8 is 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 8 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1, as it recites the limitations as instruction in a device embodiment.
Claim 9-15 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 9-15 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1-7, as it recites the limitations as instruction in a device embodiment.
Claim 16-20 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.
Claim 16-20 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1-5, as it recites the limitations as instruction store in a non-transitory computer readable storage embodiment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art, however are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-20 is/are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
None of the prior art teaches all the steps and limitations as provided on the independent claims. The prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention alone nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
The closes prior art of record are:
AI XUESHAN (CN 116565947): teaches a method and a device for determining daily peak-adjusting ability of hydropower station. The method comprises: determining the concept of daily peak-adjusting ability and setting two solutions of calculating amplitude according to time and calculating time according to amplitude; distinguishing the limitation condition of the hydropower station participating in the peak adjustment in different periods; according to the actual operation condition of the hydropower station, setting the data of the daily average warehousing flow and the daily initial water level, and analyzing according to the actual daily load of the power grid in this period, determining the typical daily load process of the hydropower station peak adjustment; setting the duration or peak amplitude of the peak load in the typical load operation process of the hydropower station; The maximum peak-adjusting amplitude or the maximum duration under the boundary condition is iteratively calculated to obtain the daily peak-adjusting ability of the hydropower station.
Hu et al. (US 9811061): teaches producing a power generation schedule including amount of energy in megawatts. Feasibility regions are generated based on volume ramp environmental constraints. A daily generation target is allocated based upon change in inflows and Bonneville power administration constraints and modeled operator constraints. Hydro parameters are controlled at dams (11) including amount of water that flows through turbines associated with respective dam included in the serial dam hydro generation system based on the power generation schedule and the feasibility regions.
Krupadanam et al. (US 20160218505): teaches A planning tool and method for energy asset sizing and optimal dispatch is provided for managing the inter-temporal optimization problem caused by adding energy assets to an energy system. The tool and method are configured to optimally size and to operate energy assets including energy storage assets. Value stream models, asset cost models, constraint and operation strategies are applied in the tool and the optimization proces
Shen et al (US 11221594): teaches A strategy for adjusting spillage based on peak-shaving response and a strategy for equal load reduction in off-peak hours check and adjust power generation of hydropower plants with specified dispatching modes. For medium- and small-sized cascaded hydropower plants, the load distribution among plants is optimized with an objective of minimizing total power release subject to control condition of total generation profile. For large-size cascaded hydropower plants, an optimization model for peak-shaving operations and a method for balancing power plants with equal load rate are combined to respond to system peak demands and guarantee power balance in all periods.
Shen et al. US 10534327 B2: teaches An iterative procedure is executed to obtain the optimal monthly generation schedules and hourly power curves at the typical day of each month. The invention can make full use of the compensation operation characteristics of hydropower plants to meet the demands of coordinating monthly generation production and daily peak power. It is capable of providing the support for interprovincial power transmission and joint operations of China's huge hydropower plants such as Xiluodu and Jinping.
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.
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