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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 27, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. However, the IDS is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98 with respect to the references listed below. Accordingly, the listed references have not been considered by the examiner.
NPL Ref. No. 3: The listed information does not match that on the document. The access date appears to be 7/26/24 – not 9/10/2021 as listed). In addition, the number of pages is 31 (not 2 as listed) and the published date appears to later than the listed 2019. Please submit the proper document or fix the description.
NPL Ref. No. 29: The listed information does not match the apparent publication date of 2017. Also, the publisher should read “Springer Optimization and its Applications.” Please submit the proper document or fix the description.
NPL Ref. No. 30: The listed publication date and the number of pages appear to be incorrect. Please submit the proper document or fix the description.
NPL Ref. No. 31: The cited document has not been provided.
NPL Ref. No. 33: The title of the document provided states “Q1 2021” (not “Q1 2020, 2021” as listed). Please submit the proper document or fix the description.
NPL Ref. No. 35: The document has a published date of 2021 (not 2013 as listed) and appears to be published by Elsevier Ltd. (not “Woodhead Publishing Limited” as listed). Please submit the proper document or fix the description.
NPL Ref. No. 45: The cited document has not been provided.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraphs [0188] and [0190] the specification states “Error! Reference source not found.” This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-6, 9, 18, and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 18 respectively recite “iteratively determining the new demand value …” and “iteratively determine the new demand value ….” Because the specification does not provide any description, it is unclear what “iteratively determining [determine]” means. Accordingly, claims 4 and 18 are indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim 5 recites “the new demand value subtracting the expected discharge amount ….” It is unclear what this phrase means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the new demand value adding the expected charge amount ….” It is unclear what this phrase means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “a capacity of the BESS; and a capacity of the BESS.” It is unclear if the second “capacity” is a duplicate or the claim requires two properties corresponding to the “capacity of the BESS.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “a capacity of the BESS, and a capacity of the BESS …” It is unclear if the second “capacity” is a duplicate or the claim requires two properties corresponding to the “capacity of the BESS.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 for the reasons given below:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 1 falls within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claim 1 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions without integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 1 recites “accessing power demand data for a facility …” and “optimizing, based on comparison between a new demand value and the original demand value for each respective power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals, a charge-discharge profile of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) …” which are abstract ideas and/or mathematical concepts. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claimed accessing and the claimed optimizing can be performed, respectively, by observation (e.g., on a display) and mentally (or by using pen and paper). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed accessing and the claimed optimizing do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus they are still abstract ideas that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 1 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed accessing and the claimed optimizing are new ideas, these features are still abstract ideas, as discussed above, and thus do not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-10, which depend on claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they merely recite features that further define previously recited elements without integrating the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 4 recites judicial exceptions without integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 4 recites “iteratively determining the new demand value … and evaluating the total cost factor ….,” which are abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally by a human (or by using pen and paper). Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed iteratively determining and the claimed evaluating do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus they are still abstract ideas that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 4 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 4 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed iteratively determining and the claimed evaluating are new ideas, these features are still abstract ideas, as discussed above, and thus do not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 7 recites judicial exceptions without integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 7 recites “evaluating the total cost factor … and identifying the charge-discharge profile for the BESS …,” which are abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally by a human (or by using pen and paper). Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed evaluating and the claimed identifying do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus they are still abstract ideas that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 7 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 7 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed evaluating and the claimed identifying are new ideas, these features are still abstract ideas, as discussed above, and thus do not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of its dependency on claim 1. Although claim 11 recites “applying the charge-discharge profile to a control system that operates the BESS according to the charge-discharge profile,” these additional elements amount to no more than a recitation to implement the abstract idea on a computer and thus does not make the judicial exception patent-eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and stating that the additional element or combination of elements must do more than simply state the judicial exception while adding the words “apply it.”). Here, claim 11 does no more than recite “applying” the result of the abstract idea (i.e., the “charge-discharge profile”) to a control system without providing a practical application that integrates the judicial exception. Note: claim 11 can overcome the 101 rejection if rewritten to positively recite the operation on the BEES (e.g., adding a step reciting “operating the BESS by the control system according to the charge-discharge profile”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 12 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 12 recites “evaluating a total cost savings factor ….,” which is an abstract idea because it can be performed mentally by a human (or by using pen and paper). Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed evaluating does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 12 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 12 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed evaluating is a new idea, this feature is still abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus do not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 13 recites judicial exceptions without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 12 recites “determining a timeframe in which the total cost savings factor is expected to exceed a total capital cost …,” which is an abstract idea because it can be performed mentally by a human (or by using pen and paper). Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed determining does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 13 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 13 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed determining is a new idea, this feature is still abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus does not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of its dependency on claim 1. Although claim 14 recites “displaying, at a display device in communication with a processor, a graphical representation representing the total cost factor,” these additional elements amount to no more than a recitation to implement the abstract idea on a computer and thus do not make the judicial exception patent-eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (Citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and stating that the additional element or combination of elements must do more than simply state the judicial exception while adding the words “apply it.”). Here, claim 14 does no more than recite “displaying” the result of the abstract idea (i.e., the “total cost factor”) without providing a practical application that integrates the judicial exception.
Claim 15 is a system claim that recites features which are substantively identical to those recited in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1. Although claim 15 additionally recites “a processor in communication with a memory, the memory including instructions executable by the processor,” these additional elements amount to no more than a recitation to implement the abstract idea on a computer and thus does not make the judicial exception patent-eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (Citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and stating that the additional element or combination of elements must do more than simply state the judicial exception while adding the words “apply it.”). Here, claim 15 does no more than recite storing instructions corresponding to the abstract ideas without providing a practical application that integrates the judicial exception.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20, which depend on claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they merely recite features that further define previously recited elements without integrating the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 18 is a system claim that recites features which are substantively identical to those recited in claim 4 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0073342 to Lee at al. (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
A method, comprising (Lee discloses a method of managing energy for a building (“method”). See Lee at par. [0018].):
accessing power demand data for a facility, the power demand data representing an original demand value for each power demand interval of a plurality of power demand intervals (Lee discloses that a “High level optimizer 632 may receive load and rate predictions [(“accessing power demand data for a facility”)] from load/rate predictor 622….” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0178] and Figs. 6A and 6B. Lee also discloses that the “Load/rate predictor 622 can be configured to predict the thermal energy loads ((Î)k) of the building or campus [(“power demand data representing an original demand value”)] for each time step k (e.g., k=1 . . . n) of an optimization period [(“for each power demand interval of a plurality of power demand intervals”)].” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0143] see also par. [0258] (Lt corresponds to “original demand value”) and Fig. 10.); and
optimizing, based on comparison between a new demand value and the original demand value for each respective power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals, a charge-discharge profile of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) that results in minimization of a total cost factor over the plurality of power demand intervals (Lee discloses a “High level optimizer 632 [that] can be configured to optimize [(“optimizing”)] the utilization of a battery asset, such as battery 108, battery 306, [(“Battery Energy Storage System”)] … [and that the] “High level optimizer 632 can allocate the battery asset at each time step (e.g., each hour) over a given horizon such that energy and demand costs are minimized [(“a charge-discharge profile of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) that results in minimization of a total cost factor over the plurality of power demand intervals”)] …. ” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0179]; see also par. [0259] (xtout corresponds to the “charge-discharge profile”) and Fig. 10. For example, Lee discloses that the “High level optimizer 632 … include[s] a cost minimizer 1202 … configured to generate a charging and/or discharging schedule for ESS 1026 [(“a charge-discharge profile of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) that results in minimization of a total cost factor over the plurality of power demand intervals”)].” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0290]).
With respect to the feature “based on comparison between a new demand value and the original demand value for each respective power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals,” Lee discloses that the “amount of electricity purchased [(“new demand value”)] may be equal to the difference between the electric load of the facility eLoadi (i.e., the total amount of electricity required) [(“the original demand value”)] at time step i and the amount of power discharged from the battery asset Pbat i at time step i. See, e.g., Lee at par. [0186]; see also par. [0259](pt corresponds to “new demand value”) and Fig. 10. Positive values of “power discharged” indicates that the “resource is discharged from storage” and negative values indicates that the “resource is charged or stored.” See Lee at par. [0183]. Because, as discussed above, Lee discloses that the high level optimizer 632 allocates the battery asset to minimize the energy and demand costs (see par. [0179]), the charge-discharge profile will be based on the total amount of required energy and the amount of purchased energy for each time step i (“based on comparison between a new demand value and the original demand value for each respective power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals”).).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses :
iteratively determining the new demand value based on the original demand value for each power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals and for the charge-discharge profile of the BESS, the new demand value incorporating an expected discharge amount of the BESS and an expected charge amount of the BESS under the charge- discharge profile (Applicant’s specification does not provide support for “iteratively determining the new demand value” as claimed in claim 4. However, Lee discloses that the “amount of electricity purchased [(“new demand value”)] may be equal to the difference between the electric load of the facility eLoadi (i.e., the total amount of electricity required) [(“the original demand value”)] at time step i [(“for each power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals”)] and the amount of power discharged from the battery asset Pbat i at time step i” (“the charge-discharge profile of the BESS”). See, e.g., Lee at par. [0186]. Positive values of “power discharged” indicates that the “resource is discharged from storage” and negative values indicates that the “resource is charged or stored” (see Lee at par. [0183]), which reads on “the new demand value incorporating an expected discharge amount of the BESS and an expected charge amount of the BESS under the charge- discharge profile.”); and
evaluating the total cost factor over the plurality of power demand intervals under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS (Lee discloses that the high level optimizer 632 includes a “[c]ost function module 902 [that] can generate a cost function or objective function [J(x)] which represents the total operating cost [(“total cost factor”)] of a system over a time horizon (e.g., one month, one year, one day, etc.)” (“over the plurality of power demand intervals under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS”). See, e.g., Lee at par. [0180]. Thus, Lee discloses the claimed evaluation.).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4, Lee discloses:
the new demand value subtracting the expected discharge amount of the BESS under the charge-discharge profile from the original demand value for the power demand interval (Lee discloses that the “amount of electricity purchased may be equal to the difference between the electric load of the facility eLoadi (i.e., the total amount of electricity required) at time step i and the amount of power discharged from the battery asset Pbat i at time step i.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0186]. Positive values of “power discharged” indicates that the “resource is discharged from storage” and negative values indicates that the “resource is charged or stored.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0183]. Thus, Lee discloses “subtracting the expected discharge amount of the BESS under the charge-discharge profile from the original demand value for the power demand interval.”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 4, Lee discloses:
the new demand value adding the expected charge amount of the BESS under the charge-discharge profile to the original demand value for the power demand interval (Lee discloses that the “amount of electricity purchased may be equal to the difference between the electric load of the facility eLoadi (i.e., the total amount of electricity required) at time step i and the amount of power discharged from the battery asset Pbat i at time step i.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0186]. Positive values of “power discharged” indicates that the “resource is discharged from storage” and negative values indicates that the “resource is charged or stored.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0183]. Thus, Lee discloses “adding the expected charge amount of the BESS under the charge-discharge profile to the original demand value for the power demand interval.”).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 4, Lee discloses:
evaluating the total cost factor over the plurality of power demand intervals while varying parameters of the charge-discharge profile of the BESS (Lee disclose that the cost function J(x) is based on “the total revenue generated by participating in incentive programs (e.g., IBDR programs) over the optimization horizon … [and that the] revenue may be based on the amount of power reserved for participating in the incentive programs.” See Lee at pars. [0180]-[0181]. With respective to the incentive programs, Lee discloses that the battery can have optimization constraints concerning the amount of battery power for satisfying electric demand and reducing the demand charge and the amount of battery power committed to frequency regulation. See, e.g., Lee at par. [0187]. Accordingly, Lee discloses the claimed evaluation “while varying parameters of the charge-discharge profile of the BESS.”);
identifying the charge-discharge profile for the BESS having parameters that result in minimization of the total cost factor (Lee discloses that “[h]igh level optimizer 632 can allocate the battery asset at each time step (e.g., each hour) over a given horizon such that energy and demand costs are minimized and frequency regulation (FR) revenue maximized.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0179]. Thus, Lee discloses the claimed identifying.).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses:
the charge-discharge profile of the BESS including:
a set of properties of the BESS (Lee discloses that the high level optimizer 632 can include a power constraints module 904 that takes into consideration the battery capacity (“a set of properties of the BESS”) when calculating the objective function J(x). See, e.g., Lee at par. [0188].);
a usage scheme of the BESS that defines a charge-discharge policy of the BESS ( Lee discloses usage schemes such as load shifting and peak load contribution. See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0076] and [0221]-[0222]. Thus, Lee discloses the claimed usage scheme.);
an event-based demand response policy of the BESS (Lee discloses incentive-based demand response (IBDR) programs (“event-based demand response policy of the BESS”). See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0148]-[0149].).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Lee discloses:
the set of properties of the BESS including one or more of: a type of the BESS; a capacity of the BESS; and a capacity of the BESS (Lee discloses that the high level optimizer 632 can include a power constraints module 904 that takes into consideration the battery capacity (“capacity of the BESS”) when calculating the objective function J(x). See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0188]-[0193].).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 8, Lee discloses:
the usage scheme being one of: a peak-clipping policy where the BESS charges during intervals when the original demand value is below a charge threshold value and where the BESS discharges during intervals when the original demand value is above a discharge threshold value (Lee discloses usage schemes such as peak load contribution. See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0221]-[0231].);
a load-shifting policy where the BESS charges during off-peak usage hours and discharges during on-peak usage hours (Lee discloses usage schemes such as load shifting. See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0076] and [0222].).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses:
applying the charge-discharge profile to a control system that operates the BESS according to the charge-discharge profile (Lee discloses an “[e]nergy storage controller 506 [that] can be configured to control the distribution, production, storage, and usage of resources in energy storage system 500,” including storage subplants 530 with energy storage device 533. See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0133]-[0120] and Fig. 5A. Thus, Lee discloses the claimed applying.).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses:
evaluating a total cost savings factor that quantifies a total difference between costs associated with the original demand value over the plurality of power demand intervals and the total cost factor under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS over the plurality of power demand intervals (Lee discloses a planning system 700 that uses demand response optimizer 630, which can operate in a similar manner as described with reference to FIGS. 6A, “to simulate the operation of a central plant over a predetermined time period (e.g., a day, a month, a week, a year, etc.) [(“over the plurality of power demand intervals”)] for planning, budgeting, and/or design considerations … [and to] use building loads and utility rates [(“costs associated with the original demand value”)] to determine an optimal resource allocation to minimize cost [(“total cost savings factor”)] over a simulation period.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0162] and Fig. 7.
Lee discloses that demand response optimizer 630 includes the high level optimizer 632 which in-turn includes a “[c]ost function module 902 [that] can generate a cost function or objective function [J(x)] which represents the total operating cost [(“total cost factor”)] of a system over a time horizon (e.g., one month, one year, one day, etc.).” Lee also discloses that the function J(x) includes “the total amount of each resource discharged from storage (e.g., storage subplants 530 [which includes a battery, see par. [0185]]) over the optimization horizon” (“under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS over the plurality of power demand intervals”). See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0183]-[0185]. Thus, Lee discloses the claimed evaluating.).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 12, Lee discloses:
determining a timeframe in which the total cost savings factor is expected to exceed a total capital cost associated with the BESS under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS over the plurality of power demand intervals (Lee discloses the planning tool 702 can “determine the benefits of investing in a battery asset and the financial metrics associated with the investment.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0163] and Fig. 7. Lee also discloses that “planning tool 702 [can] simulate the operation of a central plant over a predetermined time period (e.g., a day, a month, a week, a year, etc.) for planning, budgeting, and/or design considerations.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0162]. Thus, Lee discloses the claimed determining of a timeframe.).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses:
A system (Lee discloses “building energy system includes an energy storage system (ESS) configured to store energy received from an energy source and provide the stored energy to one or more pieces of building equipment.” See Lee at Abstract.), comprising:
a processor in communication with a memory, the memory including instructions executable by the processor to (Lee discloses an energy storage controller 506 with a processor 608 and a memory 610. See Lee at pars. [0139]-[0140] and Fig. 6A.):
access power demand data for a facility, the power demand data representing an original demand value for each power demand interval of a plurality of power demand intervals (This feature is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore disclosed by Lee for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.); and
optimize, based on comparison between a new demand value and the original demand value for each respective power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals, a charge-discharge profile of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) that results in minimization of a total cost factor over the plurality of power demand intervals (This feature is the same as that recited in claim 1 and is therefore disclosed by Lee for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 15, Lee discloses:
the memory including instructions further executable by the processor to: iteratively determine the new demand value based on the original demand value for each power demand interval of the plurality of power demand intervals and for the charge-discharge profile of the BESS, the new demand value incorporating an expected discharge amount of the BESS and an expected charge amount of the BESS under the charge- discharge profile; and evaluate the total cost factor over the plurality of power demand intervals under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS (The features recited in claim 18 are the same as those recited in claim 4 and are therefore disclosed by Lee for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Lee renders obvious:
displaying, at a display device in communication with a processor, a graphical representation representing the total cost factor (Lee discloses that energy storage controller 506 includes a GUI engine 614 (“processor”) for displaying “key performance indicators (KPI)” to users of a GUI (“display device”), which would be in communication with GUI engine 614. See, e.g., Lee at par. [0153] and Fig. 6A. Lee also disclose that cost function J(x) represents the “total operating cost of a system.” See Lee at pars. [0180]-[0181]. Although Lee does not explicitly disclose that the cost function J(x) is one of the KPIs, because the cost function J(x) is discussed extensively in Lee’s disclosure (see at least pars.[0180]-[0237]), it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to display J(x) in order to “allow users to assess performance across one or more energy storage systems from one screen.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0153].
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236560 to Lee et al. (“Lee2”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on clam 1,Lee in view of Lee2 renders obvious:
the total cost factor incorporating:
an electricity consumption cost factor in terms of the new demand value under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS (Lee discloses that the high-level optimizer 632 includes a cost function module 902 to “generate a cost function or objective function which represents the total operating cost of a system over a time horizon (e.g., one month, one year, one day, etc.).” See Lee at par. [0180] and Fig. 9. The cost function module 902 includes a cost function J(x) whose first term “represents the total cost of all resources purchased over the optimization horizon …[such as] electricity [(“electricity consumption cost factor”)] ….” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0181].);
a BESS usage cost factor of using the BESS under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS that quantifies expected degradation of the BESS over time (Lee discloses that the costs of participation in a frequency regulating incentive “may include, for example, a monetized cost of battery degradation [(“BESS usage cost factor …that quantifies expected degradation of the BESS over time”)] as well as the energy and demand charges that will be incurred.” See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0078] and [0081]. Lee also discloses that the cost function J(x) of high level optimizer 632 can include incentive programs. See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0180]-[0181] and Fig. 9.
a demand cost factor that quantifies an expected utility cost associated with the new demand value under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS (Lee discloses that the high-level optimizer 632 includes a cost function J(x) whose “fourth term represents the demand charge [(“demand cost factor”)] associated with the maximum amount of electricity purchased from the electric utility. See, e.g., Lee at pars. [0077] and [0186]. Lee also discloses that the “first term [of J(x)] represents the cost savings resulting from the use of battery power [“the charge-discharge profile of the BESS”] to satisfy the electric demand of the facility relative to the cost which would have been incurred if the electricity were purchased from the electric utility.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0186].); and
a demand response factor that quantifies a benefit associated with event- based demand response enrollment under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS (Lee discloses that “high level optimizer 632 … include[s] an incentive program module 912. Incentive program module 912 may modify the optimization problem to account for revenue from participating in an incentive-based demand response (IBDR) program” (“demand response factor”). See, e.g., Lee at par. [0216].
Lee does not explicitly disclose that the total cost factor incorporates “an environmental cost factor under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS that quantifies an environmental impact of using the BESS.” However, in the same field of endeavor, energy optimization, and thus analogous art, Lee2 discloses that the objective function, which “accounts for the cost of operating the facility 600,” can include “internalized costs of carbon emissions or other pollution associated with use of grid energy.” See, e.g., Lee2 at par. [0103]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to include the “internalized costs of carbon emissions or other pollution associated with use of grid energy” into the objective function J(x) of Lee in order to “find the net energy trajectory that minimizes the objective function over the time period” and thus the cost of operating the facility. See, e.g., Lee2 at par. [0103]. Thus, Lee and modified by Lee2 renders obvious “an environmental cost factor under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS that quantifies an environmental impact of using the BESS.” Because Lee2 teaches to use an objective function that takes into account “carbon emissions or other pollution,” there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, Lee in view of Lee2 renders obvious:
the total cost factor incorporating: an environmental cost factor under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS that quantifies an environmental impact of using the BESS; an electricity consumption cost factor in terms of the new demand value under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS; a BESS usage cost factor of using the BESS under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS that quantifies expected degradation of the BESS over time; a demand cost factor that quantifies an expected utility cost associated with the new demand value under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS; and a demand response factor that quantifies a benefit associated with event- based demand response enrollment under the charge-discharge profile of the BESS (The features in claim 16 are the same as those recited in claim 2 and is therefore rendered obvious by Lee in view of Lee2 for the reasons given above with respect to claim 2.).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of M. Sandelic, A. Sangwongwanich and F. Blaabjerg, "Incremental Degradation Estimation Method for Online Assessment of Battery Operation Cost," in IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 11497-11501, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2022.3172499 (“Sandelic”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Lee in view of Sandelic renders obvious:
the BESS usage cost factor incorporating continuous compounding over the plurality of power demand intervals (Lee discloses the use of “a battery life model to quantify and monetize battery degradation as a function of the power setpoints provided to power inverter 106.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0082]. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose a “BESS usage cost factor “incorporating continuous compounding.”
“Continuous compounding” is not explicitly defined in the specification. However, the present specification discloses that “continuous compounding” relates modeling degradation of the battery over time. Applicant’s Specification at par. [0057]. Sandelic proposes a battery degradation cost estimation method that “determines the degradation in the incremental manner for any two successive points during the real-time operation (e.g., 5 min intervals).” See Sandelic at p. 2, Sec. III.A (col. 2). Sandelic discloses that its “proposed method overcomes the limitations of the conventional degradation methods for application in the real-time operation [and that] [i]t enables the evaluation of the true cost of battery operation, i.e., degradation cost for any chosen time interval.” See Sandelic at p. 4, Sec. IV (col. 2). Because Sandelic addresses the same problem as the claimed invention, i.e., modeling the battery degradation cost over time, Sandelic is analogous art. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). Accordingly, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the “incremental degradation estimation method” of Sandelic into the system of Lee in order to “assess a true cost of the battery operation at all times.” See Sandelic at p. 4, Sec. IV (col. 2). Thus, Lee in view of Sandelic renders obvious a “BESS usage cost factor incorporating continuous compounding over the plurality of power demand intervals”). Because Sandelic teaches how to implement the “incremental degradation estimation method” for battery usage, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Lee in view of Sandelic renders obvious:
the BESS usage cost factor incorporating continuous compounding over the plurality of power demand intervals (The feature in claim 17 is the same as that recited in claim 3 and is therefore rendered obvious by Lee in view of Sandelic for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0416548 to Killian et al. (“Killian”).
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 15, Lee in view of Killian renders obvious:
the charge-discharge profile of the BESS including: a set of properties of the BESS including a type of the BESS, a capacity of the BESS, and a capacity of the BESS; a usage scheme of the BESS that defines a charge-discharge policy of the BESS; and an event-based demand response policy of the BESS (Lee discloses the use of “a battery life model to quantify and monetize battery degradation as a function of the power setpoints provided to power inverter 106.” See, e.g., Lee at par. [0082]. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose that a property of the BESS includes “a type of the BESS.” In a same field of endeavor, battery-based energy storage systems, Killian discloses that “[d]ifferent types of batteries age differently” and that “batteries of the same type will experience a similar aging behavior captured by the aging model.” See, e.g., Killian at pars. [0056]-[0057]. Killian also discloses that the “degradations of the batteries of the BESS can be determined … using the aging model.” See, e.g., Killian at par. [0059]. Because battery degradation can be dependent on the type of battery, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to include the type of battery as a property for the charge-discharge profile in order to “facilitat[e] accurate prediction of loss of values for multiple types of batteries.” See, e.g., Killian at par. [0057]. Thus, Lee as modified by the teachings of Killian renders obvious a “charge-discharge profile of the BESS including[] a set of properties of the BESS [that includes] a type of the BESS.” Because Killian teaches to look at the type of battery when determining degradation, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.
The remaining features recited in claims 19 are the same as those recited in claims 8 and 9 and are therefore rendered obvious by Lee in view of Killian for the reasons given above with respect to claims 8 and 9.).
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 19, Lee in view of Killian renders obvious:
the usage scheme being one of: a peak-clipping policy where the BESS charges during intervals when the original demand value is below a charge threshold value and where the BESS discharges during intervals when the original demand value is above a discharge threshold value; and a load-shifting policy where the BESS charges during off-peak usage hours and discharges during on-peak usage hours (The features recited in claim 20 are the same as those recited in claim 10 and are therefore rendered obvious by Lee in view of Killian for the reasons given above with respect to claim 10.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 12,529,492 to Wenzel et al. discloses a control system for controlling carbon emissions associated with building equipment.
U.S. Patent No. 12,525,799 to Kumar et. al. discloses optimizing cost of energy for building energy systems.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0357730 to Kandhway et al. discloses optimizing incentives for demand response events.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116